The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (207 page)

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The traditional meaning of the term political economy is that branch of the art of government concerned with the systematic inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, although it is now often used loosely to describe political aspects of economic policy-making. Since the seventeenth century the meaning of the term has fluctuated widely. It is possible nevertheless to identify three broad traditions of political economy which currently influence political science. These are, first, the tradition of classical political economy; secondly, the Marxian tradition; and finally, the tradition of political economics which uses statistical and modelling techniques to test hypotheses about the relationship between government and the economy.
The first recorded usage of the term political economy, is in the opening decades of the seventeenth century (generally attributed to Antoine de Montchretien in 1615). In the French courts of Henry IV the traditional meaning of economics as ‘household management’, when combined with
politique
, created the new science of the public management of the affairs of state. Under the influence of François Quesnay (1694–1774), physician to Louis XV, the study of political economy received its first systematic exposition in the work of the
physiocrats
. Challenging the mercantilist view that value was synonymous with money and that trade itself was productive, the physiocrats defined value in terms of the production of physical goods with all prosperity dependent on a successful agricultural sector. This view overturned the mercantilist obsession with increasing the riches of the merchants, and by stressing the interdependence of individuals within society made political economy the doctrine of the whole nation. By the mid-eighteenth century in the hands of the Scottish
Enlightenment
philosophers political economy was established as the forerunner of modern social science. Political economy was now seen as a study concerned with the chief domestic business of a statesman, which according to James Steuart (
Principles of Political Economy
, 1767) was to secure a certain fund of subsistence for all the inhabitants of a society.
Adam
Smith
defined political economy as a ‘branch of the science of a statesman or legislator’ concerned with the twofold objective of ‘providing a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people … and [supplying] the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public service. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign’ (
The Wealth of Nations
, 1776). Smith built on the work of his Scottish colleagues Francis Hutcheson , Adam Ferguson , David
Hume
, and John Millar to propose that the key to understanding the development of human society lay in identifying the mode of subsistence which was dominant at each stage. Although Smith worked with a crude four-stage model (hunting, pasturage, agriculture, commerce), his analysis of early industrial capitalism led him to conclude that commerce was the pinnacle of economic civilization and that liberty was fundamental to the growth of commerce. The human propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another had led, Smith argued, to the creation of that most perfect economic mechanism, the self-regulating market, which simultaneously satisfies self-interest and the needs of the community. The benefits of the division of labour, the true source of social progress and individual well-being, were limited simply by the extent or size of the market—hence Smith's preference for free trade and winding back the economic role of the state.
Unlike the later Marginalist approach to economics developed principally by Stanley Jevons (1835–82), Carl Menger (1840–1921), and Leon Walras (1834–1910), the economy is not seen by Smith as a self-propelling mechanism isolated from the wider society of which it is a part. From Sir William Petty to John Stuart
Mill
the concern of the classical political economists was to identify the social classes which comprise society, define the economic relationships between these classes and discover the laws which regulate these relationships. The structure of society is thereby conceptualized on the basis of an understanding of its economic foundation. This view was well stated by William Robertson (1812) who argued that, ‘in every inquiry concerning the operations of men when united together in society, the first object of attention should be their mode of subsistence. Accordingly as that varies, their laws and policy must be different.’ In addition to an economic theory of historical progress, an understanding of wealth comprising commodities (not solely treasure), and a justification for free trade based on the principle of an unfettered global division of labour, the classical political economists developed the labour theory of value which saw labour as a measure, and occasionally as a source, of all value. This latter aspect of classical political economy was fully developed by David Ricardo (1772–1823) whose
Principles of Political Economy and Taxation
sought to determine the laws which regulate the distribution of rent, profit, and wages. A vociferous opponent of the Corn Laws and the Old Poor Law, both seen as fetters on production and distribution, Ricardo refined the ‘embodied labour theory of value’ and concluded that the national product available for distribution was determined principally by the productivity and availability of labour. Although Ricardo believed that competitive capitalism was the ideal form of society, his analysis of value enabled the so-called Ricardian Socialists to posit the existence of a conflict of interest between capital and labour, and his theory became a radical weapon in the unrest leading up to the 1832 Reform Bill.
The doctrines of classical political economy exert a significant though often unacknowledged influence on modern political science. The technical determination of social class (on the basis of the division of labour) and the harmony of interest which is said to obtain between the classes underpins many liberal and consensus theories of politics. Most liberal writers demonstrate the advantages of market economies in terms almost identical to those laid down by Adam Smith . Within
international political economy
the liberal tradition draws heavily on Smith and Ricardo to justify arguments for the removal of all forms of protectionism in the world economy. In particular Ricardo's theory of ‘comparative advantage’ arguing that the distribution of industry among nations should not be regulated by absolute costs of production but by relative costs, occupies a central position in liberal views on
development
and underdevelopment.
The latter half of the nineteenth century saw the rise of the marginal utility theories of Jevons and the Austrian school under Menger. The marginalists redefined economics as a branch of praxiology—the science of rational action. In an attempt to introduce a more scientific and mathematically precise discipline, political economy as an economic theory of society became ‘positive economics’, defined later by Lionel Robbins as ‘the science which studies human behaviour as a relationship between ends and scarce means which have alternative uses’. Economics could now be narrowly interpreted as an isolated study of utility-maximizing individuals expressing their subjective preferences in a taken-for-granted market situation. This left space for the growth of complementary ‘disciplines’ studying social action (sociology) and political action (political science). The organic study of law, government, and society on the basis of the mode of subsistence as undertaken by the classical writers became a study of the determination of price and resource allocation in accord with individual choice.
Karl
Marx
, by contrast, developed his own organic conception of capitalist society through a thoroughgoing critique and reformulation of the theories of classical political economy. Marx's early economic and philosophical studies led him to question the naturalistic basis of classical political economy. The error of the classical writers was to naturalize (or present as universal) the historically specific social relations of capitalist society. Behind the formal abstractions of classical political economy (land, labour, and capital producing rent, wages, and profit) lay an unexamined historically specific postulate, private property. Only by taking for granted the existence of private property could the classical writers assume that classes were derived technically from the division of labour. The best exponents of classical political economy for Marx provided an analysis of value and its magnitude (however incomplete) but failed to ask the vital question, ‘why this content has assumed that particular form’ (
Capital
, vol. i).
Capital
begins therefore with an analysis of the commodity-form in order to emphasize, in contrast to the classical writers, that the products of labour only become commodities in historically specific and thereby transitory forms of society. On this historical and materialist basis Marx builds a theory of capitalist society rooted in the concepts of value,
surplus value
, and
class
. The isolated individual of liberalism is parodied since private interest is itself already a socially determined interest and the symmetrical exchange relation is shown to conceal exploitation thereby exploding Smith's theory of a harmony of interest existing between classes. Capitalist society is based on a particular social form of production within which the production of useful goods is subordinated to the expansion of surplus value. Although, therefore, Marx agrees with the classical writers that ‘the anatomy of civil society is to be sought in political economy’, his total reformulation of the classical concepts inaugurated a revolution in social and political theory the results of which have yet to be fully assimilated into mainstream political science.
Despite the dominance of marginalist definitions of economics in most orthodox academic circles, radical Marxian political economy continued to develop in the early part of the twentieth century and received a stimulus from the Keynesian critique of neoclassical economics in the initial post-1945 period in Western Europe and the United States. In addition the new discipline of
international political economy
studies the reciprocal influence of politics upon economics in the global system, whilst radical
environmental
politics is premissed on rejecting marginalist economics in favour of a more explicitly political conception of the world economy.
In an attempt to break free from the ideological connotations which surround the term political economy, a growing number of political scientists now work in the field of political economics. This principally studies the role of politicians in the making of economic policy and the effect of economic performance on the popularity/electability of governments. The methodology of modern political economics relies heavily on statistical and econometric modelling and emphasizes that hypotheses must be both logically formatted and capable of
falsifiability
. The theory of the political business cycle, which claims that governments suspend their particular policy orientation in the run up to an election in favour of policies which enhance popularity with voters, is a well-known hypothesis from the subdiscipline of political economics.
The traditions of classical and Marxian political economy have survived and are flourishing in the twentieth century because the school of neoclassical economics is often reluctant to consider the political basis and the social implications of capitalist production and distribution. Political economy as a reflexive discipline analysing the fundamental political issues which arise from the accumulation and distribution of the surplus product in capitalism offers a vigorous challenge to the disciplinary boundaries which characterize modern social science.
PBm 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search