the expression "political economy"
Can someone please comment on whether or not the following is correct?
The meaning of the expression "political economy", as it is used today, is
not identical with the meaning of the expression "political economy", as it
was used by Marx and his contemporaries. In today's usage, "political
economy" refers to a treatment of economic problems with a strong emphasis
on the political side (the politics of economics), as opposed to a
de-politicized ("economistic") view of economics. At Marx's time the
discipline of economics had not been ravaged by scientism yet. At his time
"political economy" meant the same as "public economy" or "Staatswirtschaft"
or macroeconomics (macroeconomy), as opposed to business administration,
business management or microeconomics. The term "macroeconomics" first
appeared in the 1930's (I believe), so that at Marx's time, anyone who
wanted to say "macroeconomics" or "macroeconomy" said "political economy" (=
economy of the polis). The fact that Marx's view of economics has strong
political and social-psychological components is not due to the "political"
in "political economy", but was rather common in the study of economics of
the 18th and 19th centuries (see also, Adam Smith, Hegel, etc.).
Is this interpretation correct?
Gert Kohler
Oakville, Canada
Re: the expression "political economy"
Encyclopedia Britannica: POLITICAL ECONOMY branch of social science, which later developed into economics, concerned with the raising of revenue by the state and the increase of the state's general resources. The term was introduced about the beginning of the 17th century to describe the study of the problems of the princely states, which at the close of the Middle Ages in Europe replaced the feudal-ecclesiastical political order. Adam Smith, the first to present a comprehensive systematized study, seemed to equate political economy with the treatment of "the nature and causes of the wealth of nations." After the nationalistic epoch gave way to individualism or liberalism in the late 18th century, the older state-oriented literature came to be called mercantilism. Works in this period, including David Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation (1817) and John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy (1848), gave increased attention to problems of value and distribution. The term economics replaced political economy in general usage during the 20th century; the change of name accompanied the expansion of the discipline itself, which had become subdivided into a number of specialties. Louis Proyect (The Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org)
Re: the expression "political economy"
At 02:34 PM 4/7/00 -0400, you wrote:
>Can someone please comment on whether or not the following is correct?
>
>The meaning of the expression "political economy", as it is used today, is
>not identical with the meaning of the expression "political economy", as it
>was used by Marx and his contemporaries. In today's usage, "political
>economy" refers to a treatment of economic problems with a strong emphasis
>on the political side (the politics of economics), as opposed to a
>de-politicized ("economistic") view of economics.
That's a leftish kind of political economy. But there's more than one kind
of political economy, at least if we follow the definition that dominates
the economics profession in the US: James Buchanan and his followers, for
example, do a kind of "political economy" that reduces politics to an
imperfect kind of market.
> At Marx's time the
>discipline of economics had not been ravaged by scientism yet.
back then, "political science," economics, and sociology were all merged.
Max Weber did political economy, though nowadays he is labelled a sociologist.
>Is this interpretation correct?
I think that it's often a mistake to emphasize the meaning of terms too
much, since what they mean depends on the context.
To me, political economy refers to a kind of economics which merges
political science, economics, and sociology, including institutions and
history as part of our understanding of both markets and present day
events. Marxian political economy treats capitalism as a human-made
institution which is historically limited (will not last forever). This
differs from the official view of the US economics profession.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: the expression "political economy"
[...] To the present moment Political Economy, in Germany, is a foreign science. Gustav von Gulich in his "Historical description of Commerce, Industry," &c., especially in the two first volumes published in 1830, has examined at length the historical circumstances that prevented, in Germany, the development of the capitalist mode of production, and consequently the development, in that country, of modern bourgeois society. Thus the soil whence Political Economy springs was wanting. This "science" had to be imported from England and France as a ready-made article; its German professors remained schoolboys. The theoretical expression of a foreign reality was turned, in their hands, into a collection of dogmas, interpreted by them in terms of the petty trading world around them, and therefore misinterpreted. The feeling of scientific impotence, a feeling not wholly to be repressed, and the uneasy consciousness of having to touch a subject in reality foreign to them, was but imperfectly concealed, either under a parade of literary and historical erudition, or by an admixture of extraneous material, borrowed from the so-called "Kameral" sciences, a medley of smatterings, through whose purgatory the hopeful candidate for the German bureaucracy has to pass. Since 1848 capitalist production has developed rapidly in Germany, and at the present time it is in the full bloom of speculation and swindling. But fate is still unpropitious to our professional economists. At the time when they were able to deal with Political Economy in a straightforward fashion, modern economic conditions did not actually exist in Germany. And as soon as these conditions did come into existence, they did so under circumstances that no longer allowed of their being really and impartially investigated within the bounds of the bourgeois horizon. In so far as Political Economy remains within that horizon, in so far, i.e., as the capitalist regime is looked upon as the absolutely final form of social production, instead of as a passing historical phase of its evolution, Political Economy can remain a science only so long as the class-struggle is latent or manifests itself only in isolated and sporadic phenomena. Let us take England. Its Political Economy belongs to the period in which the class-struggle was as yet undeveloped. Its last great representative, Ricardo, in the end, consciously makes the antagonism of class interests, of wages and profits, of profits and rent, the starting-point of his investigations, naively taking this antagonism for a social law of Nature. But by this start the science of bourgeois economy had reached the limits beyond which it could not pass. Already in the lifetime of Ricardo, and in opposition to him, it was met by criticism, in the person of Sismondi. The succeeding period, from 1820 to 1830, was notable in England for scientific activity in the domain of Political Economy. It was the time as well of the vulgarising and extending of Ricardo's theory, as of the contest of that theory with the old school. Splendid tournaments were held. What was done then, is little known to the Continent generally, because the polemic is for the most part scattered through articles in reviews, occasional literature and pamphlets. The unprejudiced character of this polemic although the theory of Ricardo already serves, in exceptional cases, as a weapon of attack upon bourgeois economy is explained by the circumstances of the time. On the one hand, modern industry itself was only just emerging from the age of childhood, as is shown by the fact that with the crisis of 1825 it for the first time opens the periodic cycle of its modern life. On the other hand, the class-struggle between capital and labour is forced into the background, politically by the discord between the governments and the feudal aristocracy gathered around the Holy Alliance on the one hand, and the popular masses, led by the bourgeoisie, on the other; economically by the quarrel between industrial capital and aristocratic landed property- -a quarrel that in France was concealed by the opposition between small and large landed property, and that in England broke out openly after the Corn Laws. The literature of Political Economy in England at this time calls to mind the stormy forward movement in France after Dr. Quesnay's death, but only as a Saint Martin's summer reminds us of spring. With the year 1830 came the decisive crisis. In France and in England the bourgeoisie had conquered political power. Thenceforth, the class-struggle, practically as well as theoretically, took on more and more outspoken and threatening forms. It sounded the knell of scientific bourgeois economy. It was thenceforth no longer a question, whether this theorem or that was true, but whether it was useful to capital or harmful, expedient or inexpedient, politically dangerous or not. In place of disinterested inquirers, there were hired prize fighters; in place of genuine
Re: the expression "political economy"
"Political economy" is also associated with the idea of economics as a "moral science". This goes back to Aristotle's idea of "oeconomia" as household and political management with a view to the acquisition for members of the family and the political community of the means to a "good life". "there is one form of the art of acquisition which is by nature part of household management, in so far as the latter must either find ready to hand, or itself provide, the storeable necessaries of life which are useful to the family or political community. These 'storeable necessaries,' of course, are the elements of true wealth; and a good life requires no unlimited amount of property, despite Solon's remark in one of his poems that 'no bound to riches has been fixed for man.' There is indeed a boundary fixed, as there is in the other arts also; for no art has unlimited instruments, whether as regards number or size, and riches are a collection of instruments for use in the household or in the state. We see, then, *that* there is, and also *why* there is, a natural art of acquisition which is practised both by managers of households and by statesmen." (Aristotle, Politics, Everyman Library Ed., pp. 16-17) Aristotle contrasts this with acquisition motivated by avarice. This, he claims, is an unnatural and irrational form. "Wealth, in fact, is often imagined to consist in large quantities of coin, because one form of the art of acquisition, viz. retail trade, is concerned with money. Some, however, maintain that coinage is a sham - unnatural, a mere convention - on the grounds (1) that those who use it have only to substitute another form of currency and it immediately becomes worthless, and (2) that it is of no use as an alternative to any of the necessaries of life, since he who has plenty of coin may often lack the necessary food. It is indeed paradoxical to call a man wealthy who, in spite of his great possessions, is doomed to starvation - like Midas in the legend, whose insatiable prayer caused everything set before him to turn into gold." (p. 18) "Some people, therefore, imagine that to acquire wealth is the object of household management, and their one idea in life is either to grow increasingly rich, or at any rate sit tight on what money they have. This attitude results from their being so intent upon living rather than upon living *well*: they are anxious to possess unlimited means for the gratification of their unlimited desires. Those who do aspire after a good life seek the means to bodily pleasures; and since these appear to depend on acquisition, their whole concern is to make money. Hence the other form of the art of acquisition. Since their enjoyment depends on having more than is necessary, they look to the art which yields the superfluity; and if they cannot obtain it through the art of acquisition, they have recourse to other means and make unnatural use of every gift. ... some men direct all their faculties to the acquisition of wealth, as if money-making were the end to which all else must be subservient." (p. 19) "As I have said, the art of acquisition is twofold: one form is a part of household management, the other is retail trade. The first of these is both necessary and commendable; but the other, which is the mode of exchange, is rightly censured as being an unnatural procedure whereby men profit at one another's expense. Usury is detested above all, and for the best of reasons. It makes profit out of money itself, not from money's natural object, and therefore it is the most unnatural means of acquiring wealth." pp. 20-1 Marx and Keynes adopt Aristotle's conception of the rational art of acquisition as the rational principle which would govern activity in what Marx calls "the realm of necessity" in an ideal community (Capital, vol. 3, p. 958-9). They both claim however that the dominant motivation in capitalism is that underpinning the unnatural irrational form of acquisition pointed to by Aristotle, the one dominated by avarice and embodied in Marx's idea of capitalism as M-C-M'. Neither idea has much to do with "economics" in its contemporary "only game in town" form. Having mistakenly adopted the idea that logical error is involved in treating values as objective, it assumes "science" can have nothing to say about the nature of the "good life". It also denies that motives in capitalism have anything to do with "avarice", though it does assume that the desires that are operative are insatiable. The starting point for economics of this kind is Benthamite utilitarianism. Marx and Keynes do not have much that is positive to say about it. Keynes, for instance, once referred to Benthamite economists as "Bedlamite economists". For Marx they are "vulgar economists" whom he contrasts sharply with the practitioners of "scientific political economy" e.g. Smith and Ricardo (Capital, vol. 1, pp. 174-5). In Capital, having listed a number of examples of "the kind of rub
Re: the expression "political economy"
The key to the use of the term is Marshall.
Editorial note from Marshall's principles
Vol. 2, p. 160, editorial note: "It may be noted that Marshall was largely
responsible for the replacement in common usage of the older term "Political
Economy" by the single word "Economics". His reasons for adopting the latter
word were set out in detail in The Economics of Industry (1879), p. 2: "The
nation used to be called 'the Body Politic'. So long as this phrase was in
common use, men thought of the interests of the whole nation when they used the
word 'Political'; and then 'Political Economy' served well enough as a name for
the science. But now 'political interests' generally mean the interests of only
some part or parts of the nation; so it seems best to drop the name 'Political
Economy', and to speak simply of {italics} Economic Science, or more shortly,
Economics".
Also see Groenewegen, Peter D. 1988. "Alfred Marshall and the Establishment of
the Cambridge Economic Tripos." History of Political Economy, 20: 4 (Winter):
pp. 627-67.
Arndt, H. W. 1984. "Political Economy." The Economic Record, 60: 170
(September): pp. 266-73.
267: Marshall was author of the first major treatise called Principles of
economics although the term had appeared earlier in titles of less known books
by J. M. Sturtevant (1877) and H. D. Mcleod (1878); also Marshall and his wife,
Economics of Industry, 1879. They explained, p. 2, better to drop "political"
since "political interests generally mean the interest of some part or parts of
the nation". Note: before term meant society as a whole, now political referred
to struggles among the parts.
Groenewegen, P. D. 1985. "Professor Arndt on Political Economy: A Comment."
Economic Record 61: 175 (December): pp. 744-51. 748: On Marshall's support of
the use of the term, "economics." Marshall was very concerned with labor
problems when he first began to lecture on economics. He wished to emphasize the
scientific basis of economics. In 1869, Seeley was appointed to Regius
Professorship in Modern History by Gladstone as Prime Minister. Seely
emphasized both the policy role of the chair and an association with the
teaching of political economy. Marshall's 1873 lecture notes suggest
opposition to Seely's approach. Marshall seems to have taken the term from
Macleod, H. D. 1875. "What is Political Economy." Contemporary Review, 25, pp.
871-93, because Macleod linked the science of economics with exchange.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the expression "political economy"
Ted Winslow wrote: Ted's description of Marshall seems to follow Keynes's description of Marshall. Keynes's Marshall is an attractive figure. The real Marshall was not. While he would, in his earlier years and even from time to time in the Principles, make idealistic statements about labor, he was not pro labor. Marshall, Alfred. 1925. Memorials of Alfred Marshall, Alfred Pigou, ed., p. 400 letters on a strike by engineering workers for an 8-hour-day in 1897 "I want these people to be beaten at all costs: the complete destruction of unions would be as heavy a price as it is possible to conceive, but I think it is not too high a price." As I mentioned in the last note, Marshall was instrumental in formalizing economics, because he resented people from other fields interjecting themselves into economic debates. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the expression "political economy"
The term, political economy, grew out of the earlier turn, economy, which meant the management of an estate. In the 17th century, Montechretian wrote the first book using the term political economy. He meant managing not just a single estate, but the whole state. It was not so much that it was political, as Paul suggests the modern usage implies. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Michael wrote: > > > Usually today people use the term when they are writing are the margins of > > neo-classical economics (that includes Buchanan). > > > > I have always liked Branko Horvats definition of political economy > as "a fusion of economic and political theory into one single social > theory." > > 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 Phillips, > Economics, > University of Manitoba -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: the expression "political economy"
>As I mentioned in the last note, Marshall was instrumental in formalizing economics, >because he resented people from other fields interjecting themselves into economic >debates. >-- >Michael Perelman Thank goodness he's not subbed to PEN-L. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: the expression "political economy"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I have always liked Branko Horvats definition of political economy > as "a fusion of economic and political theory into one single social > theory." This implies that they were ever separate. The allocation of resources is obviously the most political of acts, and the aim of economics seems to have been above all to conceal this fact. One cannot fuse or join what were never separate. Carrol See Ellen Meiksins Wood, *Democracy against Capitalism*, Chapter 1, "The Separation of the 'Economic' and the 'Political" in Capitalism"
Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
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]
Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
Michael Perelman quoted the following passage from Marshall's *The Economics
of Industry*:
>The Economics of Industry (1879), p. 2: "The
> nation used to be called 'the Body Politic'. So long as this phrase was in
> common use, men thought of the interests of the whole nation when they used
> the
> word 'Political'; and then 'Political Economy' served well enough as a name
> for
> the science. But now 'political interests' generally mean the interests of
> only
> some part or parts of the nation; so it seems best to drop the name 'Political
> Economy', and to speak simply of {italics} Economic Science, or more
> shortly,
> Economics".
As this passage itself indicates, Marshall did not intend by this change to
give "economics" the meaning it currently has. His intent was to retain the
older meaning of "political economy" as a "moral science".
Marshall's relation to "neo-classical economics" understood as "Benthamite
economics" is very complex.
He was a very serious and perceptive student not only of Marx but of Kant
and Hegel. Hegel, for instance, is mentioned as one of the two main
influences (the other is Herbert Spencer) on the "substance of the views
expressed in" the *Principles* (Preface). In his essay on Marshall, Keynes
quotes him as having once said of Kant "'Kant my guide the only man I ever
worshipped" and as having pointed to Hegel's *Philosophy of History* as a
key influence "finally determining the course of his life". (Keynes,
Collected Writings, vol. X, p. 172)
These influences show up in a number of essential ways in Marshall's
economics. For instance, Marshall takes a "dialectical" view of social
interdependence. This underpins his conception of "caeteris paribus" and
his use of the term "normal".
Keynes points to this In his essay (see particularly pp. 185-7 and 196-7)
It was, he claims, the basis of Marshall's distinction "between the objects
and methods of the mathematical sciences and those of the social sciences"
(p. 197) and constituted "the profundity of his [Marshall's] insight into
the true character of his subject in its highest and most useful
developments" (p. 188).
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 ultim
Re: Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
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]
Re: Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
At 10:34 AM 04/08/2000 -0500, you 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). how do they use the term? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
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: the expression "political economy"
Mine asks: > > Ted, why are you "radicalizing" Marshall and Keynes? In the final > analysis, they are fundamentally different from Marx? aren't they? > I don't think the study of ideas in general or of the history of ideas in particular is an intellectual version of World Wide Wrestling. I'm just trying to show as best I can what the ideas of Marshall and Keynes actually were. The strikes me as an important preliminary to deciding whether they are ideas we should ourselves adopt. For these purposes, the category "bourgeois thinker" is not merely not helpful it's disabling since it prevents us from examining ideas with what Keynes and Gadamer call "good will". Ted -- Ted WinslowE-MAIL: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Division of Social Science VOICE: (416) 736-5054 York UniversityFAX: (416) 736-5615 4700 Keele St. Toronto, Ontario CANADA M3J 1P3
Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
That is not the case in Canada. Here it is more usually associated with the left nationalist. Rod 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: 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"
Michael wrote: > Usually today people use the term when they are writing are the margins of > neo-classical economics (that includes Buchanan). > I have always liked Branko Horvats definition of political economy as "a fusion of economic and political theory into one single social theory." 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 Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Re: Re: the expression "political economy"
Ted wrote: >For these purposes, the category "bourgeois thinker" is not merely not >helpful it's disabling since it prevents us from examining ideas with what >Keynes and Gadamer call "good will". Mine didn't use the phrase "bourgeois thinker," but I agree: one can learn from people like Keynes. Keynes fills in a lot of gaps in Marx's vision of macroeconomics, for example. Even an anti-Semite and eugenicist like Irving Fisher had some good things to say, e.g., his theory of debt deflation-driven depressions. Even Milton Friedman has a couple of things to say, as when he clarifies neoclassical theory so we know better what it is we oppose. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://liberalarts.lmu.edu/~JDevine/JDevine.html
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: 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
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
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".
