JOVANA
Library Glossary Getting Started Three Levels Fields How it works Mission
Join the mission
Back to the library
Economics 1945

The Use of Knowledge in Society

Friedrich A. Hayek

Knowledge is scattered among millions; the price is the signal that quietly coordinates them.

Choose your version
In depth · the introduction

No one person knows enough to run an economy — so how does a city of strangers manage to feed and clothe itself every single day, with no one in charge?

The big idea

Hayek starts with a deceptively simple point: the knowledge an economy needs is never in one place. It's scattered in tiny fragments across millions of heads — this shop is overstocked, that worker is free this week, the road over there just flooded. No planner, however clever, could ever gather it all, because much of it is fleeting and never written down.

So how does anything get coordinated? Through prices. When something becomes scarce, its price rises — and that one number quietly tells everyone who uses it to use less, and everyone who could make more to make more. They don't need to know why it got scarce. The price has already done the thinking for them, packing a mountain of distant facts into a single figure they can act on.

How it came about

Friedrich Hayek was an Austrian economist who had landed at the London School of Economics. He wrote in 1945, at the close of a war fought partly between planned and market economies, and in the middle of a long, fierce argument about whether a government could simply plan an economy the way a firm plans its production.

His opponents — economists like Oskar Lange — said yes: a planning board could set prices, watch where shortages appeared, and adjust, mimicking a market by trial and error. Hayek's answer was that they had misunderstood the problem. The hard part isn't the arithmetic of allocation; it's that the crucial knowledge is local, personal, and perishable. By the time it's collected into a central report, it's stale or gone. That insight is the whole essay.

Why it mattered

Hayek reframed what a market is for. It's not just a place to haggle — it's a giant, decentralized machine for handling information that no single mind could hold. That idea reshaped how economists think about prices, planning, and why centrally planned economies kept running into shortages. But Hayek was making a careful point, not a slogan: prices coordinate well only when competition is real and they're free to move, and he knew they can fail. He was also a committed free-market liberal, so the essay is both a genuine discovery and a position in an argument — worth reading as both.

A way to picture it

Think of the price of a thing as a single dial that millions of people can see. Somewhere, a tin mine floods — a fact almost no one hears about. But the price of tin ticks up. A canning factory in another country, knowing nothing of the flood, sees its costs rise and switches to aluminium. A toymaker quietly redesigns to use less. Each person reacts only to the dial, yet together they ration the scarce tin perfectly — as if guided by a hand that knew everything, when in truth no one knew much at all.

An interactive supply-and-demand diagram for tin: one slider posts a price and shows whether buyers want more than sellers offer (a shortage) or less (a glut); a second slider closes a mine, shifting supply and raising the price that clears the market, so buyers economize without being told why.

Where it sits

Adam Smith (also in this Library) had described an “invisible hand” that turns private gain into public benefit. Hayek explained one of the gears inside that hand: information. Where Keynes asked when markets fail to employ everyone, Hayek asked what markets do brilliantly — process knowledge. Later, George Akerlof's “market for lemons” (also here) showed the flip side: when buyers and sellers know different things, the price can carry the wrong signal and the market can break. Together they map both the power and the limits of letting prices do the talking.

The original document
Original source text

I — What is the problem?

F. A. Hayek · The Use of Knowledge in Society · American Economic Review 35(4): 519–530 · September 1945 · §I
What is the problem we wish to solve when we try to construct a rational economic order? On certain familiar assumptions the answer is simple enough. If we possess all the relevant information, if we can start out from a given system of preferences, and if we command complete knowledge of available means, the problem which remains is purely one of logic.
The conditions which the solution of this optimum problem must satisfy have been fully worked out and can be stated best in mathematical form: put at their briefest, they are that the marginal rates of substitution between any two commodities or factors must be the same in all their different uses.
[ … ]
It is rather a problem of how to secure the best use of resources known to any of the members of society, for ends whose relative importance only these individuals know.
Or, to put it briefly, it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality.

II — Knowledge of time and place

§II — The knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place
Today it is almost heresy to suggest that scientific knowledge is not the sum of all knowledge. But a little reflection will show that there is beyond question a body of very important but unorganized knowledge: the knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place.
It is with respect to this that practically every individual has some advantage over all others in that he possesses unique information of which beneficial use might be made, but of which use can be made only if the decisions depending on it are left to him or are made with his active cooperation.

IV–V — The price system as communication

§IV–V — Decentralization and the price system
We must look at the price system as such a mechanism for communicating information if we want to understand its real function — a function which, of course, it fulfils less perfectly as prices grow more rigid.
The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action.
The whole acts as one market, not because any of its members survey the whole field, but because their limited individual fields of vision sufficiently overlap so that through many intermediaries the relevant information is communicated to all.

V — The example of tin

§V — The marvel of the price mechanism
Assume that somewhere in the world a new opportunity for the use of some raw material, say, tin, has arisen, or that one of the sources of supply of tin has been eliminated. It does not matter for our purpose — and it is very significant that it does not matter — which of these two causes has made tin more scarce.
All that the users of tin need to know is that some of the tin they used to consume is now more profitably employed elsewhere and that, in consequence, they must economize tin.
The marvel is that in a case like that of a scarcity of one raw material, without an order being issued, without more than perhaps a handful of people knowing the cause, tens of thousands of people whose identity could not be ascertained by months of investigation, are made to use the material or its products more sparingly; i.e., they move in the right direction.
I have deliberately used the word “marvel” to shock the reader out of the complacency with which we often take the working of this mechanism for granted. I am convinced that if it were the result of deliberate human design, and if the people guided by the price changes understood that their decisions have significance far beyond their immediate aim, this mechanism would have been acclaimed as one of the greatest triumphs of the human mind.
F. A. Hayek · The American Economic Review · September 1945