The basic contention of classical economists was that if wages and prices were flexible, a competitive market economy would always operate at full employment. That is, economic forces would always be generated so as to ensure that the demand for labour was always equal to its supply.
In the classical model the equilibrium levels of income and employment were supposed to be determined largely in the labour market. At lower wage rate more workers will be employed. That is why the demand curve for labour is downward sloping. The supply curve of labour is upward sloping because the higher the wage rate, the greater the supply of labour.
In the following figure the equilibrium wage rate (wo) is determined by the demand for and the supply of labour. The level of employment is OLo.
The lower panel of the diagram shows the relation between total output and the quantity of the variable factor (labour). It shows the short-run production function which is expressed as Q = f ( K, L ), where Q is output, K is the fixed quantity of capital and L is the variable factor labour. Total output Qo is produced with the employment of Lo units of labour. According to classical economists this equilibrium level of employment is the ‘full employment’ level. So the existence of unemployed workers was a logical impossibility. Any unemployment which existed at the equilibrium wage rate (Wo) was due to frictions or restrictive practices in the economy in nature.
The classical economists believed that aggregate demand would always be sufficient to absorb the full capacity output Qo. In other words, they denied the possibility of underspending or overproduction. This belief has its root in Say’s Law.
(a) Say’s Law: According to Say’s Law supply creates its own demand, i.e., the very act of producing goods and services generates an amount of income equal to the value of the goods produced. Say’s Law can be easily understood under barter system where people produced (supply) goods to demand other equivalent goods. So, demand must be the same as supply. Say’s Law is equally applicable in a modern economy. The circular flow of income model suggests this sort of relationship. For instance, the income created from producing goods would be just sufficient to demand the goods produced.
(b) Saving-Investment Equality: There is a serious omission in Say’s Law. If the recipients of income in this simple model save a portion of their income, consumption expenditure will fall short of total output and supply would no longer create its own demand. Consequently there would be unsold goods, falling prices, reduction of production, unemployment and falling incomes.
However, the classical economists ruled out this possibility because they believed that whatever is saved by households will be invested by firms. That is, investment would occur to fill any consumption gap caused by savings leakage. Thus, Say’s Law will hold and the level of national income and employment will remain unaffected.
(c) Saving-Investment Equality in the Money Market: The classical economists also argued that capitalism contained a very special market – the money market – which would ensure saving investment equality and thus would guarantee full employment. According to them the rate of interest was determined by the demand for and supply of capital. The demand for capital is investment and its supply is saving. The equilibrium rate of interest is determined by the saving-investment equality. Any imbalance between saving and investment would be corrected by the rate of interest. If saving exceeds investment, the rate of interest will fall. This will stimulate investment and the process will continue until the equality is restored. The converse is also true.
(d) Price Flexibility: The classical economists further believed that even if the rate of interest fails to equate saving and investment, any resulting decline in total spending would be neutralized by proportionate decline in the price level. That is, Rs 100 will buy two shirts at Rs 50, but Rs 50 will also buy two shirts if the price falls to Rs 25. Therefore, if households saves more than firms would invest, the resulting fall in spending would not lead to decline in real output, real income and the level of employment provided product prices also fall in the same proportion.
(e) Wage Flexibility: The classical economists also believed that a decline in product demand would lead to a fall in the demand for labour resulting in unemployment. However, the wage rate would also fall and competition among unemployed workers would force them to accept lower wages rather than remain unemployed. The process will continue until the wage rate falls enough to clear the labour market. So a new lower equilibrium wage rate will be established. Thus, involuntary unemployment was logical impossibility in the classical model.
Keyne’s Criticism of Classical Theory:
J.M. Keynes criticized the classical theory on the following grounds:
1. According to Keynes saving is a function of national income and is not affected by changes in the rate of interest. Thus, saving-investment equality through adjustment in interest rate is ruled out. So Say’s Law will no longer hold.
2. The labour market is far from perfect because of the existence of trade unions and government intervention in imposing minimum wages laws. Thus, wages are unlikely to be flexible. Wages are more inflexible downward than upward. So a fall in demand (when S exceeds I) will lead to a fall in production as well as a fall in employment.
3. Keynes also argued that even if wages and prices were flexible a free enterprise economy would not always be able to achieve automatic full employment.
