Classical Political Economy And Rise To Dominance Of Supply And Demand Theories

The essays in this volume, first published in 1989, seek to re-examine an important area of economic theory: value and distribution. In a sustained and analytical critique, two principle methodological approaches are compared and distinguished: the Classical or ‘surplus-based’ theories and the demand-and-supply-based equilibrium (DSE) theories. Although the essays are primarily concerned with value and distribution, the critique necessarily extends to the theory of output and employment, and in general, to the theory of trade and accumulation. The book will be an invaluable reader for students of economic thought, capital theory and Marxian political economy.

This book challenges the conventional view that monetarism is a necessary part of classical economics and shows, in an historical account of monetary controversy, that the framework upon which classical analysis is based suggests an alternative account of the inflationary process. A corollary of the argument is that the monetarist approach is a logically necessary component of neoclassical analysis and that any attempt to criticise that approach in a fundamental way must involve an explicit rejection of the conceptual structure of neoclassical economics.

This book is about the conceptual foundations of an intermediate way between liberalism and socialism. From a standpoint of economic theory, this middle way is conceived of as a synthesis of classical (Ricardian) and Keynesian political economy. While the former deals with proportions between individuals or collectives and society in tackling the problems of distribution and value on the basis of the surplus principle, the latter is concerned with the scale of economic activity as explained by the principle of effective demand. Political economy pictures the economic aspects of the functioning of the institutional system within which the behaviour of individuals is embedded. The economy considered is, primarily, neither a market nor a planned economy, but, rather, a monetary production economy. To establish an alternative to liberalism and socialism requires setting up a system of the social sciences. In this work suggestions are made for linking political economy with other social sciences, i.e. sociology, law and politics in the traditional sense, thus establishing the unity of the social sciences. In a Keynesian vein, the social sciences are conceived of as moral sciences, a view which gives rise to a specific philosophy of history. To complete the picture, issues of method associated with the theory of knowledge in the social sciences and the problem of linking theory with historical reality are also covered.

Reviews the epistemological ideas that inspired the classical economists: the methodological principles of Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, Hume, Stewart, Herschel, and Whewell. The classical age of economics was marked by an intense interest in scientific methodology. It was, moreover, an age when science and philosophy were not yet distinct disciplines, and the educated were polymaths. The classical economists were acutely aware that suitable methods had to be developed before a body of knowledge could be deemed philosophical or scientific. They did not formulate their methodological views in a vacuum, but drew on a rich collection of philosophical ideas. Consequently, issues of methodology were at the heart of political economys rise as a science. The classical era of economics opened under Adam Smith with political economy understood as an integral part of a broader system of social philosophy; by the end, it had emerged via J. S. Mill as a "separate science", albeit one still inextricably tied to the other social sciences and to ethics. The Rise of Political Economy as a Science opens with a review of the epistemological ideas that inspired the classical economists: the methodological principles of Bacon, Descartes, Hobbes, Newton, Locke, Hume, Stewart, Herschel, and Whewell. These principles were influential not just in the development of political economy, but in the rise of social science in general. The author then examines science in eighteenth- and nineteenth-century Britain, with a particular emphasis on the all-important concept of induction. Having laid the necessary groundwork, she proceeds to a history and analysis of the methodologies of four economist-philosophers—Adam Smith, Robert Malthus, David Ricardo, and J. S. Mill—selected for their historical importance as founders of economics and for their common Scottish intellectual lineage. Concluding remarks put classical methodology into a broader historical perspective.

Economics has become a monolithic science, variously described as formalistic and autistic with neoclassical orthodoxy reigning supreme. So argue Dimitris Milonakis and Ben Fine in this new major work of critical recollection. The authors show how economics was once rich, diverse, multidimensional and pluralistic, and unravel the processes that lead to orthodoxy’s current predicament. The book details how political economy became economics through the desocialisation and the dehistoricisation of the dismal science, accompanied by the separation of economics from the other social sciences, especially economic history and sociology. It is argued that recent attempts from within economics to address the social and the historical have failed to acknowledge long standing debates amongst economists, historians and other social scientists. This has resulted in an impoverished historical and social content within mainstream economics. The book ranges over the shifting role of the historical and the social in economic theory, the shifting boundaries between the economic and the non-economic, all within a methodological context. Schools of thought and individuals, that have been neglected or marginalised, are treated in full, including classical political economy and Marx, the German and British historical schools, American institutionalism, Weber and Schumpeter and their programme of Socialökonomik, and the Austrian school. At the same time, developments within the mainstream tradition from marginalism through Marshall and Keynes to general equilibrium theory are also scrutinised, and the clashes between the various camps from the famous Methodenstreit to the fierce debates of the 1930s and beyond brought to the fore. The prime rationale underpinning this account drawn from the past is to put the case for political economy back on the agenda. This is done by treating economics as a social science once again, rather than as a positive science, as has been the inclination since the time of Jevons and Walras. It involves transcending the boundaries of the social sciences, but in a particular way that is in exactly the opposite direction now being taken by "economics imperialism". Drawing on the rich traditions of the past, the reintroduction and full incorporation of the social and the historical into the main corpus of political economy will be possible in the future.