Search results

Francois Quesnay, known as the “Confucius of Europe”, was profoundly influenced by traditional Chinese culture to form his thoughts, which contained strong Chinese characteristics. This paper aims to examine economic thought of Francois Quesnay from the perspective of the construction of socialist political economics with Chinese characteristics.

Moreover, his thoughts also profoundly influenced subsequent economists, such as Adam Smith and Karl Marx. It can be said that Francois Quesnay was at the intersection of Chinese, Western and Marxist thought systems, so it is quite important to examine his thoughts critically and conduct source-tracing in China.

Hence, in the process of constructing and developing socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics, there is an urgent need to focus on exploring the value of excellent traditional Chinese culture at the theoretical level and combining the development and dissemination of the history of thoughts and the historical position of Chinese reality to realize the innovation and development of socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics.

Meanwhile, while absorbing nutrition from excellent traditional Chinese culture, it is necessary to establish scientific coordinates rather than use the discourse systems and paradigms of Western economics to interpret ancient Chinese economic thoughts. It is necessary to adhere to, inherit and develop Marxist political economy and absorb nutrition from Chinese excellent traditional culture to construct socialist political economy with Chinese characteristics.

Nobody concerned with political economy can neglect the history of economic doctrines. Structural changes in the economy and society influence economic thinking and, conversely, innovative thought structures and attitudes have almost always forced economic institutions and modes of behaviour to adjust. We learn from the history of economic doctrines how a particular theory emerged and whether, and in which environment, it could take root. We can see how a school evolves out of a common methodological perception and similar techniques of analysis, and how it has to establish itself. The interaction between unresolved problems on the one hand, and the search for better solutions or explanations on the other, leads to a change in paradigma and to the formation of new lines of reasoning. As long as the real world is subject to progress and change scientific search for explanation must out of necessity continue.

In a seeming attempt to legitimate or otherwise dignify social economics (Économie sociale, etc.), “named” economists (Adam Smith, Karl Marx et al.) have been dubbed social economists and/or regarded as having made significant but unrecognised contributions thereto. Conspicuously absent from that roster of celebrities are Léon Walras, économiste social par excellence, et al., who have distinguished themselves in the mainstream but also have done social economy(ics) explicitly, i.e. by that designation. Included in that illustrious et al. list are François Quesnay, J.B. Say, Friedrich von Wieser and Knut Wicksell (inter alios). Their due recognition, as per the present essay, cannot help but measurably further legitimise/dignify social economics.

The first Principia Mathematica (1686) by Sir Isaac Newton with reference to natural philosophy and his system of the world has largely contributed to the first revolution in scientific thinking in modern times. It has created the conceptual basis of modern science in the classical tradition by providing the tools of analysis and the technique of reasoning in terms of stability—from—within or, as we would say today, the model of stable equilibrium conditions.

The economic science is again in a crisis and a new solution prolegomena to any future study in economics, finance and other social sciences has just been published by the International Institute of Social Economics in care of the MCB University Press in England. The roots of the major financial and economic problems of our time lie in an open conflict between theory and practice. In the 1930s and before the conflict was between classical theory and given realities. In the 1990s the conflict appears between the now prevailing modern, Keynesian theory and the actual realities. In addition during the twentieth century a great argument developed between the two schools of thought, argument which is not yet settled. In one sentence, the prolegomena tried and was successful to solve the conflict between theory and practice and the big doctrinal dispute of the twentieth century. It was a struggle of research and observation over half a century between 1947 and 1997.

This is the second part of a long investigation under the title of, Principia Oeconomica; the first having appeared in this journal in 1986. The substance of the argument in this contribution is in the form of a dialogue with Henri Guitton, member of l'Institut de France and author of a book in French, De l'Imperfection en Economie (1979). Guitton is leading a new French Economic School critical of a modern economy characterised by ‘Econosm” or “Economy of Counter‐sense”. Economism refers to the practice of conceiving problems of a modern society in strictly economic‐accounting terms and neglecting a host of social and human aspects. The second term means that the sole attention given to growth in production did not increase the happiness of man but on the contrary it created for him new problems (pollution, noise, atomic radiation and other hazards). To cope with these problems, the French school recommends wise policies which Guitton called “creative imperfection”. Guitton's presentation is followed step by step, with an interpretation in terms of stable equilibrium. The recommendation stresses structural reforms to solve the same problems but following a road of “creative perfection” leading to the same goal sought by Guitton: a better world of tomorrow.

A collection of essays by a social economist seeking to balance economics as a science of means with the values deemed necessary to man′s finding the good life and society enduring as a civilized instrumentality. Looks for authority to great men of the past and to today′s moral philosopher: man is an ethical animal. The 13 essays are: 1. Evolutionary Economics: The End of It All? which challenges the view that Darwinism destroyed belief in a universe of purpose and design; 2. Schmoller′s Political Economy: Its Psychic, Moral and Legal Foundations, which centres on the belief that time‐honoured ethical values prevail in an economy formed by ties of common sentiment, ideas, customs and laws; 3. Adam Smith by Gustav von Schmoller – Schmoller rejects Smith′s natural law and sees him as simply spreading the message of Calvinism; 4. Pierre‐Joseph Proudhon, Socialist – Karl Marx, Communist: A Comparison; 5. Marxism and the Instauration of Man, which raises the question for Marx: is the flowering of the new man in Communist society the ultimate end to the dialectical movement of history?; 6. Ethical Progress and Economic Growth in Western Civilization; 7. Ethical Principles in American Society: An Appraisal; 8. The Ugent Need for a Consensus on Moral Values, which focuses on the real dangers inherent in there being no consensus on moral values; 9. Human Resources and the Good Society – man is not to be treated as an economic resource; man′s moral and material wellbeing is the goal; 10. The Social Economist on the Modern Dilemma: Ethical Dwarfs and Nuclear Giants, which argues that it is imperative to distinguish good from evil and to act accordingly: existentialism, situation ethics and evolutionary ethics savour of nihilism; 11. Ethical Principles: The Economist′s Quandary, which is the difficulty of balancing the claims of disinterested science and of the urge to better the human condition; 12. The Role of Government in the Advancement of Cultural Values, which discusses censorship and the funding of art against the background of the US Helms Amendment; 13. Man at the Crossroads draws earlier themes together; the author makes the case for rejecting determinism and the “operant conditioning” of the Skinner school in favour of the moral progress of autonomous man through adherence to traditional ethical values.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the origin of economics as a separate science.

A very comprehensive approach is presented for determining the origin of economics as a science. Three kinds of inter‐related issues are discussed: how to interpret and evaluate earlier, particularly ancient, writings, the specification of the requirements for declaring economics as a science and the definition, scope and methodology of economics.

Application of the most stringent requirements for declaring economics as a separate science to Kautilya's Arthashastra validated A.K. Sen's claim that it is the first book on economics.

According to Kautilya, economics is a separate science but not independent of other disciplines and particularly of ethics. Whereas, most of the current research ignores this inter‐dependence and consequently does not fully capture reality.

It implies that the inter‐dependence between economics and other disciplines should be encouraged and vigorously explored.

It validates Redman's assertion, “The history of economics as a science is, in my view, still waiting to be properly written”.

The first part of this article focuses on Roncaglia’s presentation of Piero Sraffa’s work and its significance for economic theory. The second part takes up some issues of content, method and interpretation of this work. It is argued that Sraffa must be put into a wider context to link him with Keynes. Sraffa and Keynes constitute the basis for elaborating a classical‐Keynesian system of political economy on a platform provided by Pasinetti’s vertically integrated labour model.

A long Introduction provides a composite methodological standard of 25 elements (concepts, theorems and basic relationships) which actually represent in analysis a system of general stable equilibrium in economics and other social sciences. In practice, the same composite standard refers to a possible regime of a free, just and stable economy and society. This double composite scientific objective standard was used to examine the content of the Memorial Lectures presented by nine Laureates who received the Nobel Prize in Economics from 1969 to 1974. Specifically, the purpose was to see how much these lectures have contributed to the clarification and the solution of the major problems of our time.