Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression political economy(fwd)
true. that is what I "meant"... Mine Ted wrote: I didn't intend to suggest that Mine had used the phrase "bourgeois thinker". What I was getting at was the idea that seemed implicit in her question that Marshall and Keynes could not have radical ideas because they were not in some sense or other "radicals".
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression political economy (fwd)
Mine wrote: However,as you know, there are some Marxists in the Marxist tradition who uncritically subcribe to the notions of "orthodox" economics and free market capitalism. This, I would charecterize as economic determinism, has interesting commonalities with liberal economics since it treats capitalism somewhat theologically and mechanistically. The typical "theory of stages" argument says that we should let the market forces operate untill capitalism unleashes itself. Any intervention in markets is seen as postponing the collapse of capitalism. so as the argument goes, this tradition still emphasizes the primacy of economic laws rather than revolutionary unity of theory and practice, which is so central to Marx's thinking. is such a distortion of Marx unique to economics dicipline in general? I have not seen, for example, such a religious reliance on markets in other diciplinary discussions on political economy of capitalism The problem is that 'markets' are just one institution in the political economic organization of society. Markets existed in pre-capitalist societies, organized exchange occurred amoung aboriginal tribes in North America long before contact with Europeans and the expansion of merchant capitalism, markets existed in the USSR and eastern Europe under central planning, markets were a characteristic of medieval Europe, etc. etc. Polanyi makes this the central thesis of _The Great Transformation_. Prior to industrial capitalism, he argues, markets were imbedded in society, meaning in part that markets were controlled by society to reflect social institutions and values and maintain the social status quo. (hence, for instance, the laws on usury, on engrossing, on fair price, etc.) In other societies, ultimate control on the distributive inbalances of markets were repealed by Jubilees, potlaches, etc. The great transformation -- the triumph of capitalism -- comes with the subjugation of society to "free markets", that is that instead of markets being embedded in society and used as an institution to facilitate production that reflects prevailing social values, society becomes an institution that reflects the values determined by markets. In the ultimate, the market replaces society as in Maggie's infamous dictate, "there is no such thing as society, only individuals." The Canadian political economy basically takes of from this point. The 'father' of the tradition, Harold Innis, was highly influenced by Veblen. In one of his most interesting articles, he makes the statement (this is by memory so is not exact) that, in new countries like Canada (he is writing in the 20s), we must discard the economic theory of the old countries and develop new economic theory appropriate to conditions in Canada. The theory of the old countries (i.e. Britain) are exploitative of the new. His 'new' theory has become known as the 'staple theory' such that he argues that society is shaped by the institutions and economic aspects of development of the leading, natural resource, export- based economic sector. Markets are one aspect of this, but more important, particularly for some of the other major staple 'theorists', like Fowke (Rod take note), Creighton, Buckley, and including Naylor, was the balance of class power which determined the distribution of income and wealth and of the 'spread' and 'backwash' effects of economic expansion. I think the most important aspect of understanding this approach to political economy is understanding the nature and location of power in society and how this was manifest in the material (economic) development of Canada. In the early part of Canadian history, the staple industries that shaped the political and social institutions were TRADES (Cod, fur, timber, wheat) which were heavy users of _commercial capital_ and hence, power was dominated by commercial capital who used this dominance to control political institutions and the distribution of political power. It also determined ultimately the political, religious elite. (See for example, Creighton's _The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence, or Tom Naylor's _History of Canadian Business_. When economic development turned to railroads and the grainhandling system and settlement, power gravitated to the hands of financial capital (not industrial capital as many Marxists assume) which lead to the control of the elite by the bankers, insurance and mortgage companies, etc. Now, the Canadian political economy tradition gradually split into two camps, the liberal camp that followed from the economist Mackintosh and, as Mine suggests, reflected a very mechanistic, non-class based, non-power based analysis -- markets for staples as conditioned by policies and institutions reflecting existing political alliances and interests (and those inherited from Britain and shaped by American influences) determined the course of, and distribution
Re: Re: Re: the expression political economy (fwd)
Usually today people use the term when they are writing are the margins of neo-classical economics (that includes Buchanan). Barnet Wagman wrote: The term 'international political economy' is/was used by international political scientists like Susan Strange - their use of the the term is almost entirely unrelated to its use by Smith or Marxians or Buchanan (in case things weren't confusing enought). Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Barnet, I agree, but I will make some general comments.. first, there is no general consensus among political or social scientists (broadly defined) about what "international political economy" means to begin with. Just as there are "international political scientists" such as Susan Strange, there are "international economists" such as Paul Krugman, so I don't see the point (though, I would say, Krugman is much worse than Strange, may be because of my diciplinary bias). Conceptual problems exist in every dicipline of social science, including economics, not only in political science. At a first glance, I should say, we have more "critical theorists" in political science, sociology, anthropology etc..than people have in economics. Economics is relatively a more conservative social science when it comes to discussion of "certain" issues. second, you are talking about how Susan Strange's use of "international political economy" is unrelated to its use by Smith, Buchanan etc... This is true and normal (by virtue of historical facts) because neither Smith nor Buchanan attempted to formulate an "exact" definition of this concept. I don't remember Smith writing in 17th century Britain, at a mercantalist capitalist period, and still mentioning the global dimensions of capitalism in some systemic way, that some of us do in IPE "today". What he meant was still packed in classical economic terms. Differently, IPE is relatively a new dicipline that has aimed to abridge the gap between economics and politics. Of course, there are different standpoints within IPE, which is what I am gonna talk about.. Third, what we mean when we mean by "political economy" in "any" dicipline, I find the term "world system" analytically more useful than "international political economy" or "political economy" per se. The reason for that is the latter still assumes that we are living in an inter-state system, not in a world system. It further expects, given free trade, all societies will automatically follow the western model of capitalist development, ignoring global hierarchies within the system. hence, it is implicitly biased in favor neo-classical economics or free market orthodoxy. Even, imperialism is seen, in these accounts, preparing the "conditions" for capitalism, and "westernizing" and "modernizing" the rest of world. This is not the problem of "political scientists" or other diciplines of social science, Barnet. the problem stems from the economics dicipline it self, a dicipline that is "still" less critical and conscious of its hypothetical assumptions compared to other social sciences, whether it is Buchanan or Smith type (actually, Lenin was one of the first who saw the problems with orthodox, free market marxism, together with brilliant Gramsci around those times) On the contrary, the concept "world system" (or even "international political economy") was first invented and heavily used by political scientists, political economists, sociologists, anthropologists and historians, not economists per se! Inter-paradigmatic communication is much stronger within those diciplines in terms of how their diciplines relate to one another. For economists, on the contary, the world is always economics "versus" other social sciences, and the rest is a bunch of cultural sciences. Any serious attempt comes from other diciplines to abridge the gap between economics and politics. for example, Wallerstein is not an economist, but he provides one of the most systemic analysis of modern capitalism, who can at least escape from the "margins" of neo-classical economy by still being a political economist. I strongly tend to believe his "sociology" background enriches his understanding of political economy. Mine Doyran Phd Student Political Science [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression political economy (fwd)
That is not the case in Canada. Here it is more usually associated with the left nationalist. very true point, Rod! I have always beleived that there is something interesting to look at in canadian leftism, eventhough canada is one of the core capitalist powers. Once, the left was associated with "almost" the same meanings in Turkey too. third world nationalist, anti-imperialist, socialist, progressive, anti-fascist, radically welfare, avant-garde, bla, bla, bla...we were very much influenced by european type leftism (certain brands), and the organic ruling classes by french and german type capitalism. thus, historically speaking, neo-classsical economy and political liberalism of anglo saxon type are alien to us. This is changing, however, within the last 30 years or so due to the incresing US hegemony and market capitalism...though i strongly reject that it should be a model for us however inevitable it seems in the first place.. cheers, Mine Michael Perelman wrote: Usually today people use the term when they are writing are the margins of neo-classical economics (that includes Buchanan). Barnet Wagman wrote: The term 'international political economy' is/was used by international political scientists like Susan Strange - their use of the the term is almost entirely unrelated to its use by Smith or Marxians or Buchanan (in case things weren't confusing enought). Barnet Wagman email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada
Re: Re: the expression political economy (fwd)
Ted, why are you "radicalizing" Marshall and Keynes? In the final analysis, they are fundamentally different from Marx? aren't they? Mine Ted wrote: Another illustration of this influence, an illustration connected to this first one, is Marshall's Marxist treatment of labour in capitalism as "alienated" labour and his view that those who do it would be able, if the conditions of their labour were appropriately transformed, to develop into what Marx (following Hegel) called "universally developed individuals". These ideas are rooted in a theory of ethics (taken over from Kant and Hegel) which treats values as objective and knowable and, on this basis, treats the human "will" as potentially, to use Hegel's language, a "will proper" and a "universal will" i.e. as a will whose content, unlike the content of other animal wills, in ultimately fully open to self-determination by reason. (A "will proper" is a will fully open to self-determination; a "universal will" is a will whose content derives entirely from knowledge of the good reached through reason.) Here are passages in which Marshall treats capitalist labour as alienated labour: "man ought to work in order to live, his life, physical, moral, and mental, should be strengthened and made full by his work. But what if his inner life be almost crushed by his work? Is there not then suggested a terrible truth by the term working man, when applied to the unskilled labourer a man whose occupation tends in a greater or less degree to make him live for little save for that work that is a burden to bear?" (Marshall, *Memorials of Alfred Marshall*, p. 108) "in the world's history there has been no waste product, so much more important than all others, that it has a right to be called THE Waste Product. It is the higher abilities of many of the working classes; the latent, the undeveloped, the choked-up and wasted faculties for higher work, that for lack of opportunity have come to nothing." (*Memorials*, p. 229) In another essay, "The Future of the Working Classes" (Memorials pp. 109-118), he sets out the conditions which would be required for all persons to develop into "gentlemen" (his term for Marx's idea of the "universally developed individual" - a term suggestive of the fact that, in contrast to Marx, Marshall's version of the idea was not free of sexism). The reason Marshall gives for the change of name from "political economy" to "economics" is consistent with all this and indicates as well his wish to retain the meaning which Aristotle had given to the rational form of acquisition. Economics was to be understood as a "moral science" concerned with the "health" of "the body Politic". Its object was to insure the provision to all members of the community of the material means of a "good life" and, as part of this, to investigate how to organize this provision (organize what Marx calls the "realm of necessity") so as to make the work required to accomplish it compatible with the ultimate end. This required, for instance, that work in the realm of necessity not be alienated labour, that it be work which both developed and required universal capacities. It also required that it take up a minimal amount of time so as to maximize the time available for "the realm of freedom" where activities were ends-in-themselves rather than means, i.e. where they were "art" in Kant's sense of "production through freedom, i.e. through a will that places reason at the basis of its actions" (*Critique of Judgment*, p. 145). Keynes was also insistent that economics was a "moral science" in this sense having as its concern the health of the body Politic (see, e.g., Collected Writings, vol. XIV, pp. 297 and 300). This is the meaning of his claim that in an ideal world organized on the basis of "the most sure and certain principles of religion and traditional virtue" (IX, p. 330), economists would be "humble, competent people, on a level with dentists". "But, chiefly, do not let us overestimate the importance of the economic problem, or sacrifice to its supposed necessities other matters of greater and more permanent significance. It should be a matter for specialists - like dentistry. If economists could manage to get themselves thought of as a humble, competent people, on a level with dentists, that would be splendid!" (IX, p. 332) As was true of other changes Marshall made to language, the change from "political economy" to "economics" was, I suspect, a response to Marx. Specifically it was a response to Marx's treatment of "political economists" as "representing their [capitalists'] *scientific* screed and form of existence". Marshall's substitution of the word "waiting" for the word "abstinence" is likely another example of such a change. He was responding to the ridicule Marx heaped on Senior's substitution of the latter word for the word "capital". Marx had called this "an unparalleled example of the discoveries of vulgar economics!" Capital, vol.
Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression political economy (fwd)
In Canada, as Rod indicates, it has taken a very special meaning as indicated in this quote from Wally Clement and Glen Williams, edicated collection _The New Canadian Political Economy_. "while political economy is based on a tradition that investigates the relationship between economy and politics as they affect the social and cultural life of societies, within political economy there have been divergent tendencies. Broadly, the liberal political economy tradition has placed determinate weight on the political system and markets, while the Marxist tradition grants primacy to the economic system and classes. Such facile statements, however, underplay the complexity of positions within each tradition. Political economy at its strongest has focused on processes whereby social change is located in the historical interaction of the economic, political, cultural, and ideological conflict." [1989: 6-7] Paul, I liked the definition. There is a lot of potentional in the Marxist tradition to explore the dialectical interaction of economics, politics, cultural and ideological. I don't know if the authors would agree with me, but this is what Marx would do as a critical theorist. However,as you know, there are some Marxists in the Marxist tradition who uncritically subcribe to the notions of "orthodox" economics and free market capitalism. This, I would charecterize as economic determinism, has interesting commonalities with liberal economics since it treats capitalism somewhat theologically and mechanistically. The typical "theory of stages" argument says that we should let the market forces operate untill capitalism unleashes itself. Any intervention in markets is seen as postponing the collapse of capitalism. so as the argument goes, this tradition still emphasizes the primacy of economic laws rather than revolutionary unity of theory and practice, which is so central to Marx's thinking. is such a distortion of Marx unique to economics dicipline in general? I have not seen, for example, such a religious reliance on markets in other diciplinary discussions on political economy of capitalism Mine Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
