Skip to main content

Economics vs Political Economy

Google Books has an interesting feature that allows to search words or combinations of them in its huge database. Below the use of Political Economy and Economics from 1776 to 2008 (last possible year in the database).
Note that there is no surprise. Political Economy dominated up to the Marginalist Revolution, with a lag for Economics to take over. Note the spike in Economics around 1890, which probably reflects references to Marshall's Principles of Economics, which marks the begging of the transition. Since the 2000s, there has been a decline in Economics, and mild increase in Political Economy. But I wouldn't be very optimistic about it. Political Economy now comes in a marginalist flavor too.

Comments

  1. Could it be for the fact that political economy now comes in a marginalist flavor that institutionalist economist K. William Kapp argued, in paraphrased form, that "in the current context, political economy and economics are no exception to the manifestation that social inquiry tends to justify and rationalize the status quo"?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Now that you mention political economy, economics and Marshall, let me ask you something: to what extent would you consider Keynes or Kalecki as real departures from marginalism?

    At one hand, Jevons, Menger and Walras (or Marshall, if I am not mistaken) conceived of microeconomics as THE economics. For them, there was no such a thing as a macro-economics. That was part of their marginalist project.

    Keynes and Kalecki, however, did see a separate role for macroeconomics. So, in this sense they do represent a departure, although a partial one.

    At the other hand, that I know of, neither Kalecki nor Keynes ever distanced themselves from the marginalist analysis based on marginal utilities and "marginal products", which gives its name to the whole Marginal Revolution, after all. From this rather important point of view, they seem to be just "minor marginalists", to paraphrase Samuelson (as Samuelson himself, btw).

    For another example: Kalecki (much more so than Keynes) understood the role of politics in economic life. That is something the original marginalists ignored completely, while their modern followers only see from the point of view of market imperfections: the Keynesians as a means to ameliorate the negative effects of said imperfections; the more mainstream economists in order to condemn outright, as the main cause of said imperfections.

    And Keynes, as perhaps could be expected given his upbringing, still saw a pivotal role for the "entrepreneur" (which we have already discussed). This is just another way to reiterate the idea that individuals' whims (or subjectivity) have primacy over the material conditions of life. As we've discussed, for Keynes only rentiers' incomes were unearned: the "animal spirits" of the true "entrepreneurs", plus the alleged scarcity of capital, justified their profits.

    So, what do you think? Should one consider K & K as real departures, or rather as Kuhnian adjustments to the marginalist paradigm?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Magpie. Some of these issues were discussed here in previous posts. Keynes never quite got rid of marginalism. His use of the Marginal Efficiency of Capital (MEK) is evidence of that. But he wanted to, and was clear that the natural rate of interest should be abandoned (not possible with the MEK). But effective demand is a departure with the type of Say's Law implicit in marginalism. Kalecki, coming from Marx, doesn't have those problems. Keynes was part of the political discussions that actually forged policy. I don't think he was naive about the role of politics, power, and class, in economics.

      Delete
  3. On the topic of economics and political economy I used to give my students the entry by Giorgo Lunghini in Kurz and Salvadori's Elgar Companion to Classical Economics. There is a link here http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=lunghini%2C%20giorgio%20political%20economy%20and%20economics&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCoQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fcfs.unipv.it%2Fopere%2Flunghini%2Fpolitical.doc&ei=n170UdOFD7fJ4APE6oGgCQ&usg=AFQjCNEl8NJVM-syb0xfRml202KLXv3OTA&sig2=V9eU49psCFXzBamW5EYFhg

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ah yes, I remember that article. I miss your class.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the 'Classical Dichotomy'?

A few brief comments on Brexit and the postmortem of the European Union

Another end of the world is possible
There will be a lot of postmortems for the European Union (EU) after Brexit. Many will suggest that this was a victory against the neoliberal policies of the European Union. See, for example, the first three paragraphs of Paul Mason's column here. And it is true, large contingents of working class people, that have suffered with 'free-market' economics, voted for leaving the union. The union, rightly or wrongly, has been seen as undemocratic and responsible for the economics woes of Europe.

The problem is that while it is true that the EU leaders have been part of the problem and have pursued the neoliberal policies within the framework of the union, sometimes with treaties like the Fiscal Compact, it is far from clear that Brexit and the possible demise of the union, if the fever spreads to France, Germany and other countries with their populations demanding their own referenda, will lead to the abandonment of neoliberal policies. Aust…

A brief note on Venezuela and the turn to the right in Latin America

So besides the coup in Brazil (which was all but confirmed by the last revelations, if you had any doubts), and the electoral victory of Macri in Argentina, the crisis in Venezuela is reaching a critical level, and it would not be surprising if the Maduro administration is recalled, even though right now the referendum is not scheduled yet.

The economy in Venezuela has collapsed (GDP has fallen by about 14% or so in the last two years), inflation has accelerated (to three digit levels; 450% or so according to the IMF), there are shortages of essential goods, recurrent energy blackouts, and all of these aggravated by persistent violence. Contrary to what the press suggests, these events are not new or specific to left of center governments. Similar events occurred in the late 1980s, in the infamous Caracazo, when the fall in oil prices caused an external crisis, inflation, and food shortages, which eventually, after the announcement of a neoliberal economic package that included the i…