Search results

In this chapter, we investigate the physiocratic claim that political economy is a new science and shows that it covers a sophisticated and nuanced range of discourses and practices. François Quesnay, the founder of physiocracy, displayed a complex and original conception of science based on the entanglement of abstract knowledge with skilled practices and the importance of rooting science in the realm of bodily sensations. We show how he applied consistently this conception to physics (medicine), political economy, and geometry. We conclude by comparing the epistemology of some of his main disciples, especially Butré and Du Pont de Nemours, to that of Quesnay.

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.

From well before the mid-19th up to the mid-20th century those scholars who read and commented on The Essential Principles of the Wealth of Nations, including Marx and Seligman, seem to have been unaware of the very name of its author. Since then it has become accepted knowledge (again) that the work was written by one John Gray. Beyond the name, however, biographical details about Gray have remained extremely sparse until the present day. If one were to use a measure of obscurity, something which perhaps is appropriate in a work devoted to ‘neglected economists’, then one may use the fact that neither the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (old or new editions), nor the Palgrave Dictionary of Economics (any edition), nor any other biographical dictionaries devote an entry to Gray. The modern authors who discuss his economic writings contend themselves with the statement that ‘little biographical information is available about Gray’ (Delmas & Demals, 1995, p. 119, n. 5).¹ This is unfortunate because at least some knowledge about the personal background and career of an author is often useful in arriving at a better understanding of his or her ideas. This, as will become clear shortly, is the case too for John Gray.

Attempts to trace the evolution of the major ideas of the natural law and in this way shed some light on the ethical contents of economics. Asks the reader to ponder some of the perennial questions such as: What is primary, ego or social association? Is man a social animal by nature? Is man a political animal? Is the justification for human existence to be found in the individual alone or in the social whole? Is society a synthesis of individuals, or does it contain something more than the simple totality of individuals?

This paper aims to contribute an Islamic critique of various competing economic system’s theories of interest, which have evolved within the distinct ideological frameworks of distinct rival economic systems and religions from the point of view of discovering potential effective Islamic economic solutions of the interest-driven modern economic, financial and banking and debt crises and the related problems of inflation, extreme, wealth inequalities and extreme poverty.

This historical research paper portrays the chronological evolution of competing narratives and theories of interest in realms of religions, philosophies and rival economic systems for contributing their comparative review and critique from an Islamic point of view in light of the pertinent literature of multidisciplinary history of religions, philosophies and economic thought. It develops an Islamic critique of theories of interest in light of interactions among history of religious thought on interest, history of economic thought on interest and economic theories of interest and the interest-driven economic crises for highlighting potential Islamic interest-free solutions of the modern economic crises in the framework of the Islamic political economy. In light of an Islamic critique of various competing theories of interest, the paper presents pertinent economic policy recommendations for the governments of the countries of the contemporary Muslim world.

The interest-free Islamic economic, as well as banking theories and models, offer the potential practical exploitation-free and injustice-free humanitarian solutions of the contemporary persisting macroeconomic crises (national, regional and global economic crises, financial crises, debt crises and banking crisis). Current Islamic discourses on interest and interest-free Islamic banking have effectively promoted the popularity and growth of global Islamic banking industry in the Muslim world in the 21st century.

Keeping in view a general universal consensus of the Islamic jurists on the elimination of interest of all types from the economy, it is recommended for the Governments of the Muslim countries to implement a consensus-based Islamic banking model, which uses only the Islamic juristic consensus-based Islamic modes of banking and finance – Musharikah, Mudharabah and Al-Qardh Al-Hassan (interest-free loan) – for precluding the possibilities of emergence of controversies about the prospective Riba-free Islamic economic and banking system. Litmus test of the practical success of the interest-free Islamic universal economic and banking system is the successful elimination of all forms of Riba (interest) and all possibilities of its involvement in extractive and exploitative activities in letter and spirit.

This research paper contributes a comprehensive logical and objective critique of various competing prominent theories of interest from an Islamic economic point of view and highlights their pertinent practical macroeconomic problems-cum-consequences as well as the potential Islamic macroeconomic policy responses in the form of interest-free Islamic banking/monetary/fiscal policies.

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.

The purpose of this paper is to analyse Michel Foucault’s new epistemological model regarding an analogy between the theory of language and economic thought in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

Through the scrutiny of language, Foucault intended to demonstrate that some analogies, among different branches of knowledge (interdiscursive practice), allow us to apprehend the underlying configuration of thought regarding ontological and epistemological conditions that have historically determined knowledge. He draws a parallel between four theoretical segments borrowed from general grammar (Attribution, Articulation, Designation and Derivation) and economic thought on wealth.

One of the most remarkable propositions of this approach is that the theory of language and economic thought were epistemologically isomorphic in that context. What the theory of language stated in relation to “attribution” and “articulation” corresponded to the “theory of value” in economic thought. What grammar investigated regarding “designation” and “derivation” was analogous to the “theory of money and trade” in economic thought. The relationships that were – directly and diagonally – identified between and among them led to the conclusion that there was ‘a circular and surface causality’ in economic thought insofar as “circulation” preceded “production”. It was “superficial” because it could not find an explanation for the cause of “wealth”, which was only possible when “production” was placed in the front position of theories.

Such an epistemological point of view can inspire other studies in the history of economic thought.

This paper offers a perspective on how to think about the history of ontological and epistemological conditions of economic thought.