The term political economy appeared in. Political Economy

Garden technique 21.09.2019

Garden technique

Introduction

Political Economy: Appearance and Evolution

Conclusion

List of sources used

Introduction

The theme of the work "Political economy: emergence and evolution."

The paper discusses the formation and evolution of political economy, the current state of the problem is critically analyzed.

Political economy is one of the oldest economy. IN Ancient Greece Xenophon (V- IV century. BC. Er) called this science "Oucosy" (from the Greek words "Okos" - a household and "NOMOS" - law). Consequently, it was about the laws of management of home slave-ownership. In such an understanding, Aristotle used him.

The name "political economy" was introduced into the scientific circulation by the French Mercantilist A. Monkeren, which in 1615 published the work of the work "Treatise of Political Economy" in Ruang. The term "politics" (from the Greek word "Politike" - state administration, public affairs) was used by A. Montcasts to emphasize the need for a rational management of no household, but the national national. After all, mercantlers were supporters of the state approach to the economy, as well as the need to understand and explain the state economic Policy In order to grow the wealth of the nation. The name of science appeared earlier than its conceptual foundations were formed and its subject was determined.

As you know, K. Marx called the mercantilism of the first school of bourgeois political economy. However, the majority of foreign economists believe that mercantilism was not science, but only its prehistory. The researchers will focus on the fact that the political economy has been stamped from moral philosophy. It was the process of forming classical political economy. There was becoming her as science. It began her teaching at universities.

Political Economy: Appearance and Evolution

state political economy of mercantilism

The definition of political economy as science demanded the formulation of its subject. However, oddly enough, political economy from the very occurrence did not have a clear definition of its subject. She for a long time remained science of wealth, which was due to the name of the book by A. Smith "Research on the nature and causes of the wealth of peoples" (1776).

In the XIX century, due to the rapid development of capitalism, the ideas of classical political economy "do not work" in real life. Under these conditions, students and followers of the classics protrude with the criticism of capitalism and classical political economy, and, as a result, in the last third of the XIX century. The neoclassical direction is formed. IN scientific literature This transition was called "Margin Revolution".

The concept of A. Marshall, who saw his task to systematize the entire postrikardian political economy was becoming a kind of completion of marzhinalism. In 1890, he published the work of the "Principles of Economic Science" ("Principles of Economics"), and in 1902 he invited the leadership of the University of Cambridge instead of the course " Political Economy"Enter the course" Economics ". There was meant to strengthen the applied nature of political economy.

In numerous responses to the specified work by A. Marshall, which leads J. M. Keynes, it was about the emergence of a "new political economy", the hopes were expressed that this work "will help revive the shameless authority of political economy." However, "Economics" is not political economics, although foreign economists are trying to identify them. So, the author of the famous textbook on the "economy" P. Samuelson wrote: "Economic theory, or political economy, as they are usually called." Of course, the "Economics" does not ignore the problems that political economics explores, but they do not determine its subject. True, "economics", as well as political economy, did not have and does not have a single definition of its subject. And P. Samuelson altogether believed that "no definition of the subject of economic theory can be accurate, but in this, in fact, and there is no need."

As Professor Chicago University F. Knight, "Economics" was replaced by a political economy. He became the leading university economy course. The differentiation of economic science occurs, micro and macroeconomics are formed. Industry economics separated from political economy. Separate schools and directions of economic science are developing. Canesianism and institutionalism appear. True, economists who investigated the history of economic thoughts write about political economy schools. In particular, B. Seligman, considering the development of economic theory from the end of the XIX century, writes about the English, Swedish and American political economy schools. Meanwhile, economists presented in studies are shown as the authors of individual theories.

And it is not by chance that scientists, not denying the presence of certain theoretical foundations of scientific schools, focus on the need for "general theory". It is the need for such a "common theory" determined the emergence of diverse "political economy".

Professor of the University of Friborce of Bortis (Switzerland) noted that after World War II, the section "Political and Social Sciences" accelerated, their specialization was deepened, and economic theory Lost historical component. This led to the predominance of a hypothetical approach in the formation of theoretical models, which, in turn, contributed to a better understanding of individual, isolated problems and limited the possibility of analyzing the functioning of the socio-economic system as a whole.

Gorthiis proclaims the "political economy of humanism", which he complies with a society organized on humanistic principles. By definition of a scientist, the leading role in its organization is played by the "Classic-Keynesian Political Economic" (he has a synthesis of works of Kene, Ricardo, Marx, Keynes). It is she who can solve interrelated problems of distribution of income and employment, which, as J. M. Keynes emphasized, is not able to solve society. Only a system of socio-political sciences in which political economy plays a leading role can solve these problems. Accordingly, G. Bortis treats such a system as a third way, the alternative economic theory of socialism and liberalism (neoclassic).

If Gorthis proclaims the political economy of humanism, then the famous English physicist, a specialist in the field quantum Physics Both biophysics, Dr. Philosophy D. Huke (1942) delivered a quantum theory of political economy in which we are talking about the interaction of natural and social sciences. He explores and processes the influence of quantum physics on the development of political economy. D. hook opposed quantum theory Cartesian-Newtonian concept, which, according to him, is built on the principles of atomism and forms the abyss between human society and nature. Focusing on theoretical and methodological achievements of quantum physics, the scientist emphasizes that they can be used in the interests of the development of economic theory.

Received a significant development and recognition of the physical economy, in which it also is about combining physical and economic. Its founder is an outstanding Ukrainian scientist S. Podolinsky (1850-1891). It formulated a new scientific paradigm of civilizational development, putting energy theory in its framework, as well as submitting the interaction of world energy (object) and a person (subject) as the basis of life. The ideas of S. Podolinsky developed an outstanding Ukrainian scientist in the field of natural science V. Vernadsky (this is, in particular, on its research of the biosphere and noosphere). Significant contribution to the development of physical economy ideas was made by M. Rudenko (1920-2004). It was he who gave the name of this science, revealed the location of the energy source, which underlies the photosynthesis, and built the formula of "energy of progress".

At the same time, the evolutionary, realistic, critical and other branches of political economy was proclaimed. And what does it mean? As scientists believe, this means that the "end of classical political economy" came. It is of interest to the prophetic foresight of this process M. Tugan-Baranovsky: "There is a complete basis to recognize the fate of political economy, as a kind of science on the causal and functional relations of economic phenomena, closely associated with modern national economy. Together with him, she arose and developed and together with him. It should come off from the stage. There will be no place in the socialist strict for this science, although it is precisely in this particular practical knowledge relating to the field of economic policy, and all the necessary auxiliary scientific disciplines - for example, statistics - should receive extreme development. Political economy Part of the economic policy will turn into a part of the economic policy, and the part will be part of a more general science on society - sociology. "

The emergence of many "general theories" (political economy) did not solve the problem. It was again about the different theoretical foundations of the "Political Economy", the absence of a single definition of their subject. Only the name of science remained, under which "general economic theory" was formed.

Changes in economic life, global shifts in the development of global civilization require new theoretical generalizations. The established schools and directions of social thought are not able to explain them. There was a need for the transition to a new paradigm of ideas about the development of society. In particular, there was a need for a detailed analysis of the problem of the influence of political institutions and processes for the functioning of the economy. Classical political savings only partially took into account political factors. The next directions of this science did not include political processes in their analysis. Thus, the interest in traditional political economy was lost.

In the second half of the XX century. Interest in the study of political processes and their role in economic life, as well as the role of government in the state intensified. Accordingly, a change in the term "political economy" occurred. Scientists proclaim the ideas of the Renaissance Political Economy, about its reorientation, mainly to study the issues of the interaction of the state and the economy, for analysis and substantiation of economic policy. They note that the problems of the mutual influence of economic and political processes, the interaction of the economy and policies became one of the leading subjects of research in the sciences of society. A "... The most successful project in the field of political economic research In modern social sciences, political economics can be considered or new political economics (New Political Economy).

The new political economy is a scientific symbiosis of political science and the economy that has formed on a general methodological basis, which is constituted several scientific theories, and above all - the theory of public selection. According to recognized leaders In this theory of J. Brennan and J. Bucken, the theory of public selection "applies the technique and analytical apparatus of the modern economy to the study of political processes." The formation of a new political economy scholars are associated with the pioneering work of E. Downce "Economic Theory of Democracy" (1957), in which the subject of the study was the relationship of the economy and policies. And sources (sources) of the new political economy, except for the theory of rational choice, were determined by the agency, international, spatial and other theories, "who were a long time independent instruments studying the impact of policies for the economy. "

The second half of the XX century. Steel became the emergence of a whole series of works that marked the formation of new political economy. We are talking about articles U. Nord-House, E. Taffeta, D. Hibbs and P. Mosley on the problems of the theory of the political business cycle, about the monographs "Political Savings" T. Persson and D. Tabellini, "Political Competition" D. Remera and Dr.

Increases interest in the study of the government's role in state life, and, accordingly, the term "political economy" is filled with new content. Modern new political economy includes several directions. It is about the purely political and political and economic models of this science. For example, the spheres of political economy democracy, which began by E. Downes, are to study the impact of political processes and institutions on the formation of economic policy, the study of the Institute of Competition political parties In the election and behavior of voters, the definition of the government and its functions.

Further development The new political economy scholars are associated with the second stage (70s of the 20th century), which marked the emergence of a number of works on political business cycles. They were talking about the relationship between political and economic cycles, a hypothesis of fluctuations were proclaimed economic indicators Synchronically with elections. These problems were investigated by W. Nordhause, E. Taft, P. Mosley, and others. An important place in the new political economy is occupied by the constitutional political economy of J. Brennan and J. Buchenane. It originated almost simultaneously with the theory of public selection and a certain period was on the periphery of mainstream, and recently recently acquired relevance. As the authors of the constitutional political economy, its task and, accordingly, the research area is the analysis of the rules that need to be adhered to ensure that the efficient functioning of society is acceptable as such. Scientists emphasize the importance of this problem and conduct an analogy with classical political economy, in particular, with the theory of A. Smith, who "used the term" laws and institutions "." We need the rules, they write, because in everyday life without them we would have fought all the time. "The rules determine the boundaries of space, within which everyone can act as it seems necessary." From the study, the relevant conclusion is made: "We must remake our rules and our thinking", "to focus our attention on the right-handers limiting the activities of governments, and not on innovations justifying the ever-growing interference of politicians in the life of citizens." J. Bucanene also examines the practical application of constitutional economic theory. He, in particular, allocates several areas of her practical application: This is the rules of taxation, budget policy, distribution of income and wealth and more.

The problems of the new political economy analyzes in their work "incentives and political economy" famous French economist J.-zh. Laffon. It defines political economy as "discipline arising from the need to delegate economic policy to politicians, and, therefore, is based on its problem of incentives." As the author notes, in this study he "raises a few questions about incentives arising from delegation to politicians to take socially significant solutions." To analyze traditional political economy issues, the author, as he himself indicates, uses the theory of contracts and the economy of information. Accordingly, the first and second sections of its work are devoted to the consideration of constitutions from the standpoint of both complete and incomplete contracts. In the third section, the scientist considers the agreement model in asymmetric information. They also offer a methodology that allows you to identify optimal changes in the Constitution. In addition, the author explores such actual problems as corruption, ecology, positive features and flaws of laws, etc.

New political economy is developing dynamically. According to the researchers of this problem, it represents "one of the most active areas of research in modern economic theory, since the introduction of political restrictions into standard economic models allows you to move in understanding and explaining real economic problems".

The high assessment of the new political economy cannot serve as a sign of its high scientific level. She, like other directions of modern economic theory, is not able to give any answers to questions arising in the global economy of the XXI century. Nor scientific knowledge about them. Like the modern economic science as a whole, the new political economy is not structured. It is about individual theories - models of both purely political and political and economic. It does not give the idea of \u200b\u200bthe fundamental laws of the development of the modern economy.

And it's not by chance that in the scientific literature, the question of the "Renaissance" of political economy is not removed from the agenda. Because of this, some interest is a study of the said problem with Russian scientists who treat it as "fate of political economy." First of all, it should be noted that with the beginning of the restructuring, political economy was excluded from scientific and educational processes in the Russian Federation and replaced by the "economic theory" or "national economy". However, scientists did not stop the struggle for the restoration, Renaissance of political economy as science and as an educational discipline. In November 2002, a group of leading Russian economic scientists turned with an open letter to the Minister of Education of the Russian Federation with a proposal to "restore political savings as a general-life discipline and as a science in the Russian classification of sciences."

However, the question arises: if restoring political savings as general theoretical discipline, then, in fact, what? Does it talk about the classical, Marxist or some new political economy? The appeal of scientists was ignored, and in the scientific environment there were two directions - supporters and opponents of the Renaissance political economy. Opponents of the revival of political economy were focused mainly on the neoclassical "economy", arguing their position by a number of provisions, by the way - not scientific, but mainly organizational and practical. They opposed the restoration of political economy in the educational process, motivating their opinion by the fact that regulations In education, they give each university the opportunity to introduce disciplines into the educational process to their own discretion. Opponents of the Renaissance of Political Economics also proved the "practical inappropriateness" of this campaign, due to the fact that a lot of work has already been carried out on the creation of programs of training courses and the relevant documentation for "economic theory". They referred to the pan-European requirements, in particular, the Bologna process, in the program of which such an object, as a political economy, is absent. In turn, the supporters of the Renaissance Polytecconomy leanned towards the synthesis of different directions of economic theory (in particular - classical and neoclassical) under common title "political Economy". Such an attempt was implemented in a number of teaching aids (published at Moscow University), where it was about the coverage of unambiguous economic categories from different conceptual positions. However, this idea did not receive the support of scientists.

The new version of the synthesis of theories suggested S. Dzarasov, including classical, post-Octainsian, institutional and neomarxyism in a new, revived political economy. Consequently, the neoclassical synthesis is opposed to postclassical - "synthesis more high level"According to the author, a tool that would unite theories within the framework of a new course of political economy, the Marxist methodology should be, relying on this methodology and using the views of the leading representatives of these trends, you can" seriously promote political savings and submit an alternative "neoclassically-mainstream "Polyteconomic interpretation of modern society."

Without stopping at many unauthorized synthesis of the proposed synthesis, it should only be emphasized as Keynesianism, and institutionalism, as well as neoclassic, the Marxist methodology is alien, and therefore its application is not acceptable to them as a constituent of the new political economy.

In June 2004, an international scientific symposium was held at Moscow University "Economic theory: historical roots, a modern role and development prospects". Summing up the work of the symposium, Professor V. Cherchovets stated with regret that he did not produce any agreed decision on the ways of restoring political economy as an independent learning discipline in universities. " According to the scientist, the symposium and could not offer a specific draft decision to solve, given the state of economic science both in Russia and in the world educational and scientific space. Therefore, he puts the question: "What to do?" and allocates two problems, two tasks that, in his opinion, should be solved to implement the restoration of political economy: "Needlessly, a special large-scale preparatory workAimed, on the one hand, political and economic research of the largest topical problems of socio-economic development ,., On the other hand, to develop accumulated issues of structuring the most economic theory in its modern condition".

In practice, solve the problem of the "model" of the Renaissance of the Political Economy The author offers by implementing two "subroutines":

1) preparation of textbooks and textbooks on this subject;

2) implementation of scientific research.

In such tutorials, it proposes to include the main political economic directions of modern economic theory, conducting a comparative analysis of their methodologies, interpretations of the most important problems and categories of the same name (such as "product", "utility", "cost", "money", "prices" "," Profit "and its sources). In fact, the scientist proposes to include all modern economic theories in these textbooks, turning special attention On classical political economy and Marxism.

In our opinion, the creation of a political economy textbook on such a basis is quite problematic. It will be more reminding the textbook on the history of economic teachings or on modern economic theories, especially since V. Cherchovets proposes a comparative analysis of the methodologies for the included directions of modern economic theory, as well as their economic categories. And since the methodology and determination of the economic categories of different directions are different things, it is difficult to imagine the content of such a textbook. As for the second part of the author's proposals, the analysis in the textbooks of the most pressing scientific problems is envisaged.

It is of interest to the position of supporters of Marxism, which are not a question about the resumption, Renaissance of political economy, but on the formation of a new political economy, which would meet the requirements of today, the calls of the XXI century. In this context, a scientific study of K. Molchanova is some of course, which connects the problems of socio-economic development with the development of social sciences, and in particular - political economy. Accordingly, this author, the transition to the "new political economy" is natural, due to the social and economic development. He traces the evolution of political economy, highlights its stages. Modern stage The author is the fourth. Inherent patterns of development, new problems, and therefore, the tasks require new foundations of development, new theoretical developments and, accordingly, "new political economy".

According to K. Molchanova, political economy in her "old" understanding "lost" for society his meaning, without providing in the XX century. his mission ( public Development). Consequently, the political economy in his "old" understanding is exhausted. Thus, objectively arises the need for new political economy. The author suggests a new political economist, on the basis of the Marxist-Leninsky "philosophical and economic heritage (but taking into account his reservation and dialectical development), together with consideration and analysis of events and economic theories of the XX century, as well as taking into account the new goals and requiring solutions of modern tasks. ". Consequently, the formation of a new political economy he intends to implement on the basis of Marxist-Leninist theory, taking into account modern problems and theories.

As for the rethinking of Marxism, K. Molchanov, first of all, refuses its fundamental thesis - class struggle. "... Class struggle, - he writes, is unacceptable as the basis of development at the turn of the XXI century.". He advocates confinitive, democratic development, which will take place in the future socio-economic formation, which the author is conditionally defined as the "formation of industrial social society". According to the scientist, the transition to the new formation will be accompanied by the transformation of some economic categories, in particular costs and surplus value. The lack of class struggle, he believes, will cause a new definition of surplus value - "political economic, and not political."

Summing up the study, K. Molchanov concludes that the socio-economic processes of modernity and, accordingly, the transition to the study and development of political economy through the stages and phases determine the need to "rethink knowledge and identify new analysis methods." In his opinion new approach And the relevant basics will ensure the formation of modern political economy. "Keeping achieving political economy of the XVII-XX centuries., Modern political economy is not reborn from the ashes of the predecessor, and appears at the beginning of the XXI century. From the world's ocean waves of knowledge and historical development experience, marking a new science development circle." Consequently, the author has evolution, the development of political economy is a natural process due to socio-economic development, and its peculiar vision is a combination of Marxism with modern economic theories.

The opinion of scientists about the "end of classical political economy", which they associate with the weakening of class contradictions, cannot be circumvented. In March 2008 at the Institute of Economics, RAS, at the meeting round Table., with a scientific report "Working Question and the End of Classical Political Savings" was made by Professor M. Wayers. He connects political economy with a working question, which understands as a problem of confrontation of labor and capital. "The presence and existence of the working class, the author of the report emphasizes, is obviously, it is possible to directly associate with the fate of political economy." In turn, the irrelevance of "working matter" explains the irrelevance of political economy. "If the current Russian government," he proves, "not in words, and one will strive to create social state, the importance of the working question will decline and the political economy will lose meaning. "Consequently, the subject of political economy The Rapporteur associates with the class society and, accordingly, denies the political economy in a broad sense. As for today, then, according to a scientist, the presence of class contradictions necessitates Political economy for society. The report contains many nonsense, which was noted already during its discussion 36. And what is interesting, the discussion acquired a preferential focus on finding out the working matter, and not problems of political economy.

Negative assessment Materials of the Round Table received from representatives of the All-Russian public organization "Russian scholars of socialist orientation." In particular, in Article V. Budarin "Which Political Economy I need Russia" described in detail the speeches of both the speaker and opponents. First of all, the author of the article pays attention to the fact that neither the speaker nor the majority of actually set themselves in their task to prove the idea of \u200b\u200bthe inevitability and the need to dieting the classical political economy or somehow to resist her, and instead discussed different concomitant topics. He emphasizes that the speaker does not clearly determine the essence of the classical political economy and its chronological framework. Outstates V. Budarin and the fact that the speaker, analyzing Marxism-Leninism, does not even mention such "outstanding personalities who have made an invaluable contribution to the essential development of Marxist political economy as V. I. Lenin, I. V. Stalin, N. A. Voznesensky. "

Budarin also does not perceive the Rapporteur's assertion that the need for political economy is due to key contradictions, the class division of the company that arises only at the stage of bourgeois development and "having a property will ever end." Then the political economy will not need. The author of the article criticizes the speaker and for its definition of the subject of political economy, which he has a social conflict between capitalists and workers as a major conflict in the distribution of social product.

The question of solving the problem of the revival of political economy due to the synthesis of theories and creating the "integrative course of economic theory" for a long time discussed on the pages of economic publications. Supporters of such integration understood its meaninglessness, disadvantages - in particular, the "danger of eclecticism, a mechanical association of essentially different and even opposite conclusions, provisions and assessments of real economic relations." They hoped to prevent this at the expense of "allocation of entities, the most adequate" modern economic relations. It is clear that it is not scientific decision Problems, and synthetic course - fiction.

The diversity of opinions and proposals for the restoration of political economy has not changed the situation. In the Russian Federation approved a scientific program of research on "New Political Economy". This prompted scientists to develop relevant programs, a methodological base and training courses, as well as to prepare new benefits and textbooks. For example, A. Dankov, analyzing the evolution of the new political economy, determines its subject and allocates several stages in its development. He writes: "New political economy is a separate sector of social science, the subject of studying which is the impact of political institutions and processes on economic policy."

Educational and methodological materials and the program "New Political Savings" developed V. Busygin. In particular, 7 sections are allocated in this program, with the corresponding disclosure of their content.

Section 1. The role of the state in the modern economy. Political institutions and political restrictions. Section 2. Models of political processes and tools of political economics analysis. Section 3. Redistribution Policy. Section 4. Comparative analysis political systems. Section 5. The problem of temporary consistency of political decisions and approaches to its solution. Section 6. Monetary policy. Section 7. Political Saving Reforms. In our opinion, this is a rather modest list of issues under study by foreign economists. But, obviously, it cannot be otherwise. The fact is that economic theory is increasingly enriched, it grows and at the same time divided into separate conceptual parts, isolated from it. A "new political economy" is to some extent the national team name of the individual theories of the political and economic directions that are not yet structured. Therefore, researchers may include in their analysis of problems that are greater interest for them.

For those who studied Marxist political economy, such a structure of science is unusual. Indeed, in Marxist political economy, we are talking about a clear definition of the subject of science, the main and starting relationship, the economic laws and the system of economic categories are investigated, the main contradiction of the production method is distinguished and the ways of its permission are disclosed. This means the presence of systemic and clear logic in scientific analysis.

As for the "new political economy", then, at first glance, the distrost and diverseness of the content are affected. In it, political issues are put forward on the forefront, their influence on the economy. It seems that the study of the "new political economy" involves the knowledge of the classical, Marxist political economy with their interpretation of economic laws and categories. Meanwhile, "new political economy" successfully occurs. As for its assessment,, in our opinion, it is quite possible to agree with the findings of A. Dankova: "The new political economy is still a fertile object for criticism. The absence of empirical confirmations, on the one hand, and the arbitrary nature of the prerequisites, on the other hand, contributes to the junction of concepts and paradigms. Today, about new political savings, you can say the same thing that John Keynes said about the mathematical economy in the 1930s, namely, that she "is essentially a simple interhesion, as inaccurate, as well as those initial assumptions on which It is based, and the authors are able to forget about the complex relations and relationships of the actual world, closing in the maze of pretentious and useless characters ". At the same time, the author determines the importance of the latest economic research. In particular, he writes that "recognition of the fact that economic policy is formed within the framework of the political process, the political authors in the context of political institutions, and its maintenance and results are largely determined by the political" origin ", is the main result of the half-century efforts of many scientists and researchers united by the tradition of new political economy. "

Conclusion

Summing up said, you should pay attention to several problems. First of all, we are talking about structuring economic science and the definition of its subject. This problem emphasizes Professor V. Yeremenko, "makes up the essential characteristics of the most economics." IN modern conditions There are no more or less unambiguous systematization and structuring of economic science. In scientific research, often we are often found with the identification of the concepts of "economy", "economic theory", "political economy", "Theoretical Economics", "Economic Science", etc. without defining the subject. This identification concerns, in particular, such fundamental concepts as "Economic Science", "Political Savings", "Economic Theory". In such identification, V. Yeremenko accuses, in particular, Professor P. Mainnesegen (Sydney University), who, according to him, identifies the concepts of "political economy", "Economic Science" and "Economic Theory" than "... even more aggravated the discussion "47.

In our opinion, it is advisable to make some comments. First of all, in the work of P. Mornesegen, we are talking about the study of the emergence and evolution of the term "political economy". "Discussion," the scientist writes, - ... will be concentrated mainly around the definitions and wearing an etymological character, emphasizing the absence accurate definitions The term "political economy" and its more modern synonym "Economic Science" ", that is," Economics ". The fact that we are talking about "Economics", indicate both the content of the work and its name. As for the term "Economic Science", this is an unsuccessful translation of the term "Economics", which makes a lot of confusion into scientific research. From our point of view, it is more expedient to leave this term without translation. At the same time, we implies the opinion of V. Yeremenko about that "that the concepts of" economic science "," economic theory "and" political economy "do not simply coincide, but are absolutely different." To the greatest extent, this identification concerns the concepts of "political economy" and "economic theory".

We regard such identification of concepts as illegal. After all, the term "economic theory" can and should be applied when it comes to individual theories (distribution, exchange, growth, etc.), and in their framework - about the set of individual theories. Therefore, analogically identify all the science of "political economy" so term. Obviously, the mass identification of terms can be explained by the fact that in the time of restructuring it is the term "economic theory" the term "political economy" was replaced. Scientists, trying to preserve at least the name of science, used such definitions such as "Economic theory (political economy)"; "Economic theory, political economics aspect", etc.

As for benefits and textbooks, they are usually built according to the "Economics" scheme. In our opinion, you can agree with the opinion of W. Aliyev, who proposes to call this discipline (political economy) "Theoretical savings (economy)" - according to the sample determination of the theoretical component in other sciences (for example, "Theoretical Mechanics", "Theoretical Mathematics") . The change in the name, of course, implies the need to scientifically substantiate a new concept by clarifying its subject. As you know, the political economy did not have and does not have a single definition of the subject. It changed in the process of socio-economic development, which will certainly continue. This is for the name of science. As for its content, this is a separate question.

Interesting thoughts on the evolution of economic science and its future expresses Professor D. Kolander (USA). First of all, it emphasizes the inevitability of changes in the economic theory, due to both technical progress and personnel changes in the composition of scientists. "Changes in technology," the researcher writes, "will cause significant transformations in the economic science of the future." They strengthen computational capabilities in scientific work. And "young, differently trained, economists come to replace the old, and the image of what economic science and its study is changing." D. Kolander predicts the development of new hybrid forms - such as psychoeconomics, neuroeconomics, socioeconomics, bioeconomics, etc. In his opinion, the importance of new specific sections of the applied economy - such as the economics of health, crime, etc., and "Economic Science will cease To exist as a totality of weakly related approaches. " Ultimately, a scientist believes, psychologists will disappear, sociologists, economists - only social scientists will remain.

As for the new political economy, its appearance can be viewed as a certain stage in the development of economic science. And its definition as a "new political economy" suggests that the name corresponds to the content and subject of science. Indeed, we are talking about "political economy", about combining politics and economics, whereas the name meant "laws of state and public administration" in orthodox political economy. "New political economy" explores complex and important problems Public Development. However, it is not able to form (develop) the theoretical foundations of the modern economic and social Development, as well as a long-term socio-economic strategy. Therefore, it is not by chance that scientists emphasize the need for the formation of political economy as a fundamental theoretical basis of a system of economic sciences, the subject of which should be the essence of the phenomena and processes of economic life, that is, economic laws.

List of sources used

1. Aliyev W. Once again about the terminological designation of the theoretical component of economic science. "Society and Economics" No. 4-5, 2003, p. 250.

2. Colander D. revolutionary value of the theory of complexity and the future of economic science. "Economy Questions" № 1, 2009, p. 98.

3. Keynes d g. M. Alfred Marshall. In the book: Marshall A. Principles of Economic Science. T 1. M., 1993, p. 33.

4. Samuelson P. Economy. M., "Progress", 1964, p. 26.

5. Seligman B. The main flow of modern economic thought. M., "Progress", 1968, p. 287, 355, 414.

6. Bortitis, the revival of old sciences about the state - the path to the system of humanistic socio-political sciences. In the book: Sottskalnі і Pol_tichnі science in SpevDruzhnosti inextricular powers. Rodok Zoustrich. Kyiv, 23-25 \u200b\u200bVesna 1998 r., P. 45.

7. Kornichuk L., Shevchuk V., Vorobyva L. physical economy. Ukrainian school. "Economics of Ukraine" No. 9-10, 2006.

8. Tugan-Baranovsky M. I. Basics of political economy. M., 1998, p. 37.

9. Libman A. Directions and Prospects for the Development of Political and Economic Research. "Economy Questions" No. 1, 2008, p. 27.

10. Brennan J., Buchanane J. Cause of Rules. Constitutional political economy. St. Petersburg, 2005, p. 12.

11. Dankov A.N. Retrospective of a new political economy (), p. 3.

28. Busygin V.P. New political economy. 2004.

29. Mainegen P. Political Economy and Economic Science (Political Economy and Economics). In the book: Economic theory (ed. J. Inteella). M., "Infra - M", 2004, p. 680.

30. Shubladze E.K. The issue of theoretical designation of economic theory. "Society and Economics" № 8, 2000, p. 189.

31. Salikhov B. Is the political economy of modern public realities adequate? "Society and Economics" № 3, 2006, p. 17.

32. Leonenko P. M. Methodologicnі aspects of the Istorії Ukraine Duma (XIX-XX Art.). K., 2004, p. 66.

Tutoring

Need help to study what language themes?

Our specialists will advise or have tutoring services for the subject of interest.
Send a request With the topic right now, to learn about the possibility of receiving consultation.

Political Economy, political economy - One of the social sciences, which is the subject of production relations and laws that manage their historical development.

Etymology of the term

For the first time, political economy was used by the playwright and writer Antoine Monkeyen in the economic treatise « Traite d'Economie Politique» ("Treatise on political economy", 1615). Monkeyen neither before that, nor after economic work did not write. Back in 1911, describing the degree of independence of the treatise, the British Encyclopedia made a conclusion: he " basically based on Jean Boden works" Circumstances, the foggy of the playwright on the writing of the treatise were purely political (the author dedicated him to the young king Louis of the XIII and the King of Mother Mary Medici). An excellent connoisseur of ancient languages \u200b\u200band literature, Monkeyen constructed a successful term to designate the subject of J. Boden.

Abstract, anagram " political Economy» - « economic policy"Corresponds to the movement from the rationale (theory) to the implementation (practice). However, by virtue of its fundamentality, the conclusions of political economy could have a recommendatory character for politicians.

"To use a new term in everyday life" - confirm it in discussions with colleagues, contribute to the emergence of the tradition of its use, or at least see this term in someone else's treatise - Monkeyene did not have time. Over the next 6 years before its death (1621), other works on economic and economic themes did not write Monconta.

The subject and method of political economy

Category " political Economy"Is one of the elements of the subset of the category" economic theories"; Accordingly, these terms are unequivocal and not interchangeable. Political economy is only one of the many sciences formulating economic theories. At the same time, within its framework, as well as "inside" any other science, they can arise, coexist and even compete several high-quality distinguishable aggregates of private theories. Groups of interrelated, not mutually resistant theories developed within the framework of the same science, on the basis of the same subject, but by different groups of scientists applying miscellaneous methods And the receptions are folded into schools and the flow of scientific thought. Over time, the discrepancy between them in the area of \u200b\u200bthe subject and the method can reach a critical point, after which the emergence of new sciences is stated, with its, less mutually contradinct definitions of objects and methods.

The subject of science is the key, but not the only object of its study. The amount of objects from the subject of the subject of science is important, the subset of the amount of objects studied by it. Depending on individual conceptual installations, the depth of the study of objects not mentioned as part of the subject of political and economic research of specific political and economic schools may vary, up to complete abstraction from their existence. In some cases, it can question the validity of calling " political and economic»School, where not only the subject, but also private objects of research ignore categories substantial to determine this science.

Science Method - Research Takes. Among the methods common with most other economic theories, political economy relies on:

Analysis and synthesis. Analysis - dismemberment of a complex object into components. Synthesis - integration into a single integer parts, properties, relations previously selected in the course of analysis. Synthesis complements the analysis and is located with it in an inseparable dialectical unity;
Abstraction - After analysis, separation of the essential characteristics of (component) phenomena from insignificant, produced by a certain (often quantitative) criterion.
Induction and deduction. Induction is a type of conclusion that provides a transition from single facts to multiple, from private to common. Deduction, in a broad sense - any conclusion at all; In philosophical - reliable evidence or conclusion on the basis of laws of logic. In the deductive conclusion of the investigation are in the parcels, and from there by logical analysis. Induction and deduction are not separate, self-sufficient, but necessarily inextricably interconnected moments of dialectical knowledge.

Systems approach - Not a separate method (as sometimes mistakenly indicated, along with analysis, synthesis, abstraction, deduction and induction), and the entire listed set of methods, which makes it possible to consider a separate phenomenon or process as a system consisting of a certain number of interconnected and interacting elements.

Methods specific to political economy, which may not be absent or have secondary importance in other economic theories include:

historical I. sociological method. Since a person is included in the subject of political economy and as a subject of economic relations, and as an active participant, and as a result of economic processes, this science is obliged to consider phenomena in the historical plan, projecting them into a sociological result. The inductive and deductive relationship of these methods noted V. Zombart:

« The historical approach is an approach to a single, one-time, sociological - to repeat, i.e. To typical».

However, political economy is not replaced by a story nor sociology, adopting these sciences not their specific methods and items, but only principles. Thus, historicism is the principle of knowledge of things and phenomena in their development and becoming in connection with the specific historical conditions that determine them.

Political economy studies the economy and developing relations in it in the part of its subject, which is thus determined by the category " Relations of production" These are public relations, folding in the process of reproduction, including:

production;
distribution;
exchange;
consumption of material goods.

Political economy identifies patterns and formulates economic laws that manage the development of production relations at different historical stages of development economic activity mankind. In order to distinguish them, different techniques can be used to allocate qualitatively different states of the productive forces and production relations of the Company, in particular, a special category of socio-economic formations.

I formulate your subject, and thereby watershed with the preceding stages of the development of economic thought, in the XIX century political savings, based on compliance with this formula, is further sacrificed with other sciences and disciplines related to it in the area of \u200b\u200bthe subject. This, in particular: merchant, history of law (including economic) and national economy Different countries and regions, economic statistics, etc. Interacting with them, and using materials, professionally and thoroughly studied by scientists and specialists in other areas, political economy and itself becomes the basis for the emergence of new sciences: the history of the economy, econometrics, etc.

In the XVIII-XX centuries to this day, political economy is a major, but not the only source of socio-economic theories. The distinction between political savings and other related sciences and disciplines is carried out for a number of criteria, among which the socio-historical component, the coverage of the interests of all social groups-subjects of production relations, the forecast of the results of one or another economic policy. These criteria are generally answered by a number of other economic schools of the XIX-XX centuries, one of which in this regard was the name "Neoclassical Economic Theory" (ascending to the classical political economy).

For the first time phrase political Economy Used the playwright and writer Antoine Monkeyen in the economic treatise "Traité D" Économie Politique."(" Treatise on political economy ", 1615). Monkeyen neither before that, nor after economic work did not write. Back in 1911, describing the degree of independence of the treatise, the British encyclopedia made a conclusion: it is mainly based on the works of Jean Boden. " Circumstances, the foggy of the playwright on the writing of the treatise were purely political (the author dedicated him to the young king Louis of the XIII and the King of Mother Mary Medici). The beautiful connoisseur of ancient languages \u200b\u200band literature, Montouden designed a successful term to designate the subject of the J. Boden:

« political"- Causes reminiscence and actually with politics, and with the Aristotelian treatise" Politics "(Greek. Πολιτικά ), whose name goes back to Greek. Πολίτευμα - State device.
« saving"- with the" economy "of Dr. Greek. Οἰκονομικός , one of the reduced dialogs of xenophon, setting rules ( laws, nomos.) Hours of the economy (Greek. οikos. - house as a self-associated business unit; cf. home ownership).

Abstract, anagram "Political Savings" → "Economic Policy" corresponds to the movement from the rationale (theory) to the implementation (practice). However, by virtue of its fundamentality, the conclusions of political economy could have a recommendatory character for politicians.

Modern meaning, the term "political economy" acquired in the XVIII century, from the end of the XIX century. Instead, the term has already used "Economic Science" (Economics), the use of the term "political economy" stops. However, until the end of the XIX century. The term "political economy" is used as a modern term "economic science". In the 1960s, political economy is revived, only the meaning of this term has changed. At the beginning of the XX century. A number of economists tried to return to the subject of economic theory, however, the discussions continue until now. J. M. Keynes in 1921 in the "Introduction" to the Cambridge Economics Handbooks series remarked:

Economic science is not a doctrine soon, but by the method, apparatus and technique of thinking, which help those who speak them to come to the right conclusions.

This more briefly formulated J. Robinson in 1933, describing economic science as a "toolbox".

By the 1960s, the term "political economy" begins to be used by the law-revital libertians from Chicago and the Center for Public Choice Research. The main question that is studied in the framework of modern political economy is: "How can economic science contribute to the understanding of a particular problem?" In the framework of institutionalism (Tallock), family relationships, education of children, death, crime are studied with the help of tools of economic theory. sexual relations, behavior of politicians. This direction is often referred to as economic imperialism.

The subject and method of political economy

Category " political Economy"Is one of the elements of the subset of the category" economic theories» ( mn.ch.!); Accordingly, these terms are unequivocal and not interchangeable. Political economy is only one of the many sciences formulating economic theories. At the same time, within its framework, as well as "inside" any other science may arise, coexist and even compete several highly different aggregate private theories. Groups of interrelated, not mutually resistant theories developed within the framework of one science, on the basis of the same subject but different groups of scientists applying different methods and techniques are consigned to schools and flow Scientific thought. Over time, the discrepancy between them in the area of \u200b\u200bthe subject and the method can reach a critical point, after which the emergence of new sciences is stated, with its, less mutually contradinct definitions of objects and methods.

Subject of political economy : The object of the study will be society, social ties. But this object is studied by psychologists, and sociologists, and political scientists, etc. The subject of political economy will be socio-economic phenomena, which add up in certain areas, which in different periods of time were in the focus of political economy.

Method of science - Research techniques. Among methods, common With most other economic theories, political economy relies on:

Systems approach - not a separate method (as sometimes mistakenly indicate, along with analysis, synthesis, abstraction, deduction and induction), and all listed set of methods, allowing to consider a separate phenomenon or process as a system consisting of a certain number of interconnected and interacting elements.

Methods specific For political economy, which may not be absent or have secondary importance in other economic theories include:

historical and sociological method. Since a person is included in the subject of political economy and as a subject of economic relations, and as an active participant, and as a result of economic processes, this science is obliged to consider phenomena in the historical plan, projecting them into a sociological result. The inductive and deductive relationship of these methods noted V. Zombart:

consumption of material goods.

Political economy identifies patterns and formulates economic laws that manage the development of production relations at different historical stages of the development of human activity of mankind. In order to distinguish them, different techniques can be used to allocate qualitatively different states of the productive forces and production relations of the Company, in particular, a special category of socio-economic formations.

I formulate your subject, and thereby watershed with the preceding stages of the development of economic thought, in the XIX century political savings, based on compliance with this formula, is further sacrificed with other sciences and disciplines related to it in the area of \u200b\u200bthe subject. This, in particular: merchant, history of law (including economic) and national economy of various countries and regions, economic statistics, etc. Interacting with them, and using materials, professionally and thoroughly studied by scientists in other areas, political Savings and itself becomes the basis for the origin of the New Sciences: the history of the economy, econometrics, etc.

Specific elements corresponding to the definition of the subject of political economy appear in the works of "pioneers" of this science (U. Petty, P. De Bouagilber, etc.), receiving a final consolidation in the writings of A. Smith, D. Ricardo, K. Marx, J. -B. SEA, T. Malthus, Bastia and others, whose work refers to classical political economy. Despite the similarity of individual conclusions and laws formulated by different "classes", in the framework of political economy, various schools developed and the flow of economic thought. Of these, the largest among scientists, the editions of scientific papers and the duration of existence is marxist political economy (As part of which various schools and flows are also allocated).

In the XVIII-XX centuries, to this day, political economy is a major, but not the only source of socio-economic theories. The distinction between political savings and other related sciences and disciplines is carried out for a number of criteria, among which the socio-historical component, the coverage of the interests of all social groups-subjects of production relations, the forecast of the results of one or another economic policy. These criteria are generally answered by a number of other economic schools of the XIX-XX centuries, one of which in this regard was the name "Neoclassical Economic Theory" (ascending to the classical political economy).

Genesis of the subject of political economy

The historical predecessor of political economy is mercantilism, the subject of the studies of which is the sphere of appeal. In the future, in the course of the development of political economy like scienceThe main focus shifts in the sphere of production.

The subject of political economy in version A. Smith is formulated in the title of its main work: " Research on nature and the cause of the wealth of peoples». Wealth (eng. wealth) As the subject of Science understood D. Ricardo. Throughout the XIX century, Smith's work played as an educational role, and was the object of criticism, generating new concepts in science. Second meaning wealth - abundance (and at the time of Smith also "prosperity"). But the political economy returned to this meaning in the 20th century.

Coming to Smith in time critics - Simon de Sismondi (and then another representative economic romanticism, P. Prudon) argued that not the objects of wealth themselves (things), and their distribution (and redistribution) is the subject of political economy, and its special purpose is to ensure the justice of this process. A number of researchers allocate a special element of novelty, which SISMONDI brings into a method, namely - input moral-ethical element The principles of classical political economy:

Political economy - "Science is not a simple calculation, but moral science"; She enters into "a misconception when operates with bare figures, and leads to the goal only when the feelings, needs and passions of people are taken into account."

The most important discussion questions about the subject and method

Social focus of political economy

Liquidation of social injustice And her way, building a just society - The goal presented by the treatises of many great thinkers, starting with deep antiquity. Already in the ancient Egyptian "records of the Ipouser":

The country turned over as a pottery circle. Poor became rich, people - the poor ... who was looking for bulls for plowing, became the owner of herd; who did not have grain, hesides himself; Who did not master the boats, became the owner of the ships; the former owner looks at them, but they are no longer his

Ignore this problem suicide, because an alternative is social shocks, revolutions, bloodshed:

The dependent people became the owners of people ... who was on the parcels, sends the other himself ... Officials are dispersed throughout the country; The laws are thrown out and go on them, insignificant people roam back and forward at the main trilons; The chamber is opened, filled tales seized; The royal warehouses and lively became the property of any ... The handful of lawlessness deprived the country of the kingdom; What hid a pyramid, then empty: the king will be removed ...

This is the oldest documentary evidence of the first of the social revolutions known for today in the history of mankind. At the same time, this treatise - and the first attempt to indicate the most dangerous type of injustice, namely, in economic relations, in the relationship of property, in the distribution of goods. The same questions studied and antique philosopherswhose problems are essential from the problems of ethics and morality. In the new time, the task of transformation of society in socialist principles, the need for a fair reorganization of public relations (and including economic) is included in the subject of a special flow - the theories of utopian socialism (see reference). Although economic relations are one of their subjects, methodologically Proceedings of the Socialists-Utopists Domarix Persons are out of political economy: Along with the bourgeois political economy, utopian socialism is one of the preceding it. However, priority in the introduction of the task of eliminating social injustice among the most important target functions of political economy - not for Karl Marx, and for its predecessor, S. Sismondi:

"People united into society ... to secure happiness"

The economy deals with certified facts, and ethics - with estimates and responsibilities. These two areas of research do not lie in the same plane of reasoning.
Original text (eng.)

Economics DEALS with Ascertainable Facts; Ethics with Valuations and Obligations. The Two Fields of Enquiry Are Not On The Same Plane of Discourse.

Contrary to Robbins, the economy is a moral and ethical science in its essence. She, so to speak, takes a self-surveillance method to serve and makes judgments about the price.
Original text (eng.)

AS AGAINST ROBBINS, Economics Is Essentially A Moral Science. That Is To Say, IT Employs Introspection and Judgement Of Value.

Political economy in Europe

England. The first professor of the Department of Political Savings was Sir Thomas Robert Malthus.

Italy. Up to the present, political savings are developing as science and is studied as an item (see Economia Politica).

Pre-revolutionary Russia. Interestingly, from interrogations of the Decembrists was concluded that to curb the evil of liberty, it is necessary to withdraw political savings from curricula (although it did not reach this).

Political Savings in America

Political Savings in Socialism

the USSR

In the Soviet Economic Science, Marxist political economy was considered as the basic principle of the national economy, it was based on the planned nature of economic development with the ultimate goal of the abolition of commodity-money relations.

Notes

"... Based Chiefly On the Works of Jean Bodin"; cm
Anikin A. V. Youth of science. Life and ideas of thinkers - economists to Marx \u003d 2nd ed., Pererab. and add. - M.: Politicize, 1975. - P. 384.
Savelyeva I. M., Poletayev A. V. History and time. In search of lost. - m.: Languages \u200b\u200bof Russian culture, 1997. - p. 500. - ISBN 5-7859-0026-4, p.105;
Maslennikov P. V. et al. Introduction to the specialty. Tutorial. - Kemerovo: Federal Agency for Education. Kemerovo Institute of Technology food Industry, 2007. - P. 108. - ISBN BBK 65: 74.58Y7, p.81.
Andrianov V. P. Theory of mercantism.
, from. 680.
, from. 684.
, from. 685.
Wed: Philosophical Dictionary. M.: Policy, 1975. - with. 5, 101, 148.
Zombart, V. Sociology. - L.: Thought, 1924. - s. eight
ed. Smirnova A.D. Criticism of non-Marxist concepts in the teaching of political economy. - m .: Higher School, 1990. - P. 352. - 20,000 copies. - ISBN 5-06-000025-7 , p.33.

Market mechanism - a complex and very dynamic structure, which depends on huge number Factors: the level of inflation, the ratio of supply and demand, the activity of their participants, state regulation and, of course, the state of the economy as a whole. At the same time, it is the last element that plays one of the most important roles in the healthy development of the whole society.

The formation of a modern economy had an influence of a large number of schools and teachings. Institutional, neoclassical, Marxist, Keynesian, mercantiletic and other directions have made a huge contribution to the fact that now the economy and the theory and thinking of ancient philosophers are now called the medieval thinkers to the desire to find answers to all questions relating to the relationship between the buyer, the seller and the state.

So, Monkeyen - the founder of the mercantilism school - for the first time introduced such a concept as a political economy. Part of this term has appeared during the lifetime of xenophon. It was the ancient Greek writer and politician who implemented the word "savings", which meant the "housekeeping laws". Mercaltiles began to consider this concept in a more global sense - in relation to not only the family, but also in the context of the state. Therefore, Monkeyen in his treatise and introduced the term "political economy". If we translate literally, it means "public or state management of farms."

Gradually, this expression began to figure out an increasing meaning and expand the boundaries of its value. And, as a result, political economy has grown into separate science. Such scientists and thinkers of the classic school, like Smith, Ricardo, Kene, Buagilberg, Turgo, Petit and others, began to analyze not only the sphere of circulation, but also directly the sphere of production. It was precisely this that it made it possible to consider the internal laws of the functioning of a complex market mechanism and gave the basis for the formation of such a new science as political economy.

Thanks to representatives of the classic school, the beginning of labor

This is especially brightly traced in the works that first took it for the basics to analyze the differences between wages and profit, as well as between profit and rent. At the same time, the theory of the classical school was aimed at expressing the interests of the bourgeois segments of the population. It was when the formation of capitalism and capitalist production methods occurred, and a completely undeveloped class struggle of the proletariat was gaining its power. Then the representatives of this school became violently to support the statement of feudal atavism.

It was the English formed the basis of one of the Marxist teachings. However, not only the socialist school is based on the teachings of Ricardo and Kene - in the 30s of the 19th century in the UK and France, the development has been developed and contrary to the theory of classics science. She rents from the already familiar and calls completely different sources - land, labor and capital. Such scientists, as this, Malthus and Bastia, do not consider the laws of development of production, and relieve exclusively on this theory received the name "Vulgar political economy".

Political savings - from-raise, in Lo-alive on-Cha-Lo Form-Mi-Mi-Mi-Che-Te-Mi-Bow-Mi-Che-Te-UK.

WHO NIK-NIE-EPE NIE-MII.

Sociable "Political Savings" Powered-Wi-Elk in the head of Proshi A. Mont-Kriend-e-on "Tat-Tat in Li Ti-Che eco-no-miy "(1615) and under-ray-zu-va-lo ras-shi-re-active in a row-ka with ob-las -Om-Ho-Zyay-St-Va (Oikonomia) on the region of Ho-Zyi-St-Wa in the pre-de-lax of the State Tse-Lo. In the Li-Te-Tu-re measures-can-Ti-Liz-Ma State-sub-Wa-Lo in a ni-ma-decision of political economy as on-bo-RA pre-Pi-Sa For Pra-Vi-Tel-Tel-St-Va in the Tse-Lyakh, the same-the-go-th-na-na-thor-th-th, Ba Lan-sa Uve-Li-Chered to-Ho-Dov Kaz-us with from-day-st-vius in Vla-de-Ni-Mo-Na-ka Rud-Ni-Ko-Rod Tal deals. But in the age-penny, a hundred different political savings, a different policy of political economy: "EU-Te-St-Venosh-Ko-Nov" , non-Ho-di for the exact SU-J-de-Sori-Ni-Ni-Tel-Nyu-North-Su-Darisi (U. Pet-Tyu); Is-up-to-the Eco-No-MIC muting-Mo-Vi-Si-Mi-Social Soci-Vi-Al-Bush (P. Boua-Gil -Be-ra, R. Kan-Til-O-O). Per-Sis-Te-Ma-Tichetic "IS-FE-QU-VAS-QU-POP Little-Ti-Cheko Eco-No-Mia" (1767) would be Sa-But Scottish Avt-Rum J. Stu-Arov Tom; He is SFOR-MU-Li-RO-Ta-Da-Chi Political Saving: "Webly, the OP-DE-Lyon-ny Foundation of Su-St-Ways for All te-leu, pre-dot-nephery all-cue the risk of WHO Ni-No-venera's non-voyage of these funds, ensuring all blah, not Di-MY for the satisy-led-re-re-latch, and give a question of all Libery. "

Under WHO-Da-St-Vi-Lo-Fi-Fii, the pro-Obosh, in Ev-Ro-ne, the pre-stakeholder about the continued Ho-Zyi- St-ve as about EC-punished in a row, in the one-ko-rh-vi-tel-v-vo, not honesty-si (french school -Al f-zo-edge), and about In-di-Vi de, pre-following in the Ho-zyaniy act-tel-no-ego-static in-ten - Out of own Paul ("Much-Much-les about the Li-Thi-Chest Eco-No-Mia" of the Italian Fi-Lo-Co-Fa P. Vel-Ri, 1771). These pre-leases of SDE-LAL state-sub-silence of A. Smith ("IS-FE-Du-Vasya about the RO-de and Proshi B-Gat- ST-VA Na-Ro-Dov ", 1776). Ran-nude of the IS-Town of Political Saving He Schem-Ma Ti-Rou-Val, as in the next-to-va-tel of three "SIS-Top": "Mer-Can-Til-Noi" (her Ti-Pich-Mi-Ra-Zi-La-Mi Smith on-eyed T. Ma-on and Zh.B. Kol-Ba-Ra, I-ni-Ruya Mont-Crow -E-on and stu-AR-TA), F-Zo-Kra-Ti-Chekoy and Sis-Te-We are the Sa-Morty Media. TATTAT MEDIA-TA PO-LU-SILE-EE-RO-PEY-SOCIENCE AS "RU-KO-QUI IN CO-ZERS-CAU-SU-SU-DAR- of the stubborn strength "(according to the N.P. Ru-Myan-Tse-va) and on-Cha-Lo" Nu-Schero ", or" Clas-Si-Chekoy ", political savings. With its influence, echo, either the influence of the Uti-Li-Ta-St-Skoy Fi-Lo-Co-Fii I. Ben-Ta-Ma, Pro-Veda She Once-li-mine political savings as Nau-Koi and as an IS-Cry-St-in Eco-No-Micn Little.

Since the beginning of the XIX century in ve-ly-co-brothers and France, Essay-beer in the Lo-su Pro-mouse-Lena Re-in-Luzi, Pro-Isos -The Al-Waiting-in-lemth of Clas-Si-Cheky Li-Ti-Thieh Eco-No-Mii with Dock Three Non-Fine-Tel va of state-owned in the activities of pre-at-Ma-te-lei, i.e., the Li-Thi Eco-No-Miche Li-Ra-Liz-Ma, under ZUN-GOM "LAISSEZ FAIRE" (POLE NEFT-SHA-TEL-ST-CO). The crucian-PHIM of the Teo-Re-Kom of the Eco-No-MIC Li-Ra-Liz-Ma, the Tre-Bo-Wav-ShiM of the removal of all pre-degrees with on-co-p-le Ka-Pi-Ta-la, became D. Ri-Car-to. The main thing in Pu-la-Ri-Rum was J.B. Say, his studies-ni-ki da-whether OS-no-Wu for the structure of the Kur-owl of political economy in the layer-seven-Sia in the 1st half of the XIX century, the euro-euro structure -The-re university-si-tet-go-go pre-di-va.

Ras-home schools in Li-Thi-Cheka Eco-No-Mia.

J.B. Say Op-re-de-de-de-de-ours about the "EU-Te-St-Venosh", Uni-Tel-Salny in the time of the time and pro-country-st-ve, for -Cost pro-from-water-ST-Va, Ras-pre-les and in demand-lesions of bo-guts; D. Ri-Kar-to You-Dv-Gal on the first plan of the Sre-Dach of the Political Saving of the IS-Fuck-up-to-Wait-Qii in Ras-Pre-Lea Public up-go-yes me-du Trem-Main Clas-Sa-Mi-St-Wa in Fore-Ma-Ra-Botno Plait-Whether and Ren -you. A. The media - that did not succeed to give a non-pro-ty-re-chief of the OP-DE-DE-NIE-EK-NOA OS-no-you -The "EU-Te-St-Vienna"); One-terr-pre-Ta-Qi-Troi-Du-Lo-Kar-to-Ki-to-Troi-Du-Troi-Ko-Key, and Saya - to theo-rii three fact -Be-from-water-stop. But both of them are co-headed with Form-Mu-Li-Koy T.r. Mal-Tu-Som-co-new on-up-to-on-levels and delay-diy-diya, from which Sde Lie Water-waters about OG-RA-NI-ESI of the Ra-Botnoye Platter Out-of-La -I (Theo-rye "Ra-Bo-Thista-yes", or, according to you, "Las-Sala-la," Same-Les-Kon Bottic Plat-you ").

On-Chav-Shea in Ang-Lii Cree's Industrial Pen-D-from-Water-St-Wa, which-rye zh.b. Say, up-to-half of his OP-Ti-Masp-Ta-Ta-Ta-Ta-Tala, Kea-Bow-Mi-Mi, Had-Di-Di-Di Ti An-Century Zh.Sh.L. De SIS-MON-DIC PE-RE-LED OS-NO-VAKI OF POLITICAL SAYS AND PRI WU-WU to its pre-erase in the theo-rhya blah-tel-tel - But. For a non-time-a-chie to go-go-theres and the country of disassemble, the political savings of the POLITICAL savings are also under-Verr. Lee Cry-Ke, pre-Ho-Div- To from-Ri-Thai, a si-on-te -e-whether uto-pi-che-th cozy-liz-ma. A series of English Avt-Khu-Unti-Zo-Vas-D.-up-to-home theory of the price-n-d. Ri-Car-to-to-to-be BO-THOSE TO THE POLANT PRO-DRAKT TRU-DAY ", YOU-DVY-NOV KA-THEN-RIA" PRIA-BA-I-NOCH PRICES "(W. Tomb-Son, "Is-up-to-availager about Pros-Pakh Ras-pre-de lesion of Bo-Gat-St-Va-Va-Ni-Tel-Na-Lo Ski-MU NAV-Stuya ", 1824) and with a call of the SO-Zada in the pro-Ti-Waiting of the Li-Ral-Ral-Ral" political economy of sob-stop-vest " "Long" political economy (T. Year-skin, 1827). Initu-ku Nizhi Kom-Pro-Miss Me-well Eco-No-Miche Li-Ra-Liz-Mom and his co-Qi-La-Stick Cry-Koy Sde-Lal, In addition to the SIS-Te-Ma T-Di-Kar-Di-An-Teo-Rii of Prices and Ras-Pre-Dee, J. Mill; His "Os-no-Ye." (1848) is a hundred-to-one-Ev-Ry-Ski Uni-Vi-Si-Tet- SKI COM-SOM is a li-ticker eco-no-mii.

In the time-shot-lynic gear of the sta-new-level political economy of Pro-Isa-Ho-Di-Lo under WHO Da-St-Vi-EM, with one hundred us, the mass-ti-en-st-va, with a friend, - Ka-Me-Ra-Li-Ki, that the foot-layer-wi-lo-pro-country is ne-the Si-no-ni-mos of political economy, as "on-Qio-Na-Naya Eco-No-Mia" (Natio-Nal-ÖConomie) and "Designation of on-Romal Ho-Zyi-St-ve "VOLKSWIHSCHAFTSLEHRE). KRO-IU, ON-RA-BOT-KA OF ECO-NO-MIC KA-THEN-RIA IN SAVI WITH AG-RO-NI-ENERY PRIA-LAK TO FOR-MI RO-Va Nia, Na-Naya with Ra-Bot I.G. The background of TJU-Na-on, the Oso-Bo-go-lease-lesion "Sel-Kho-Kyai-St-Vo-Noy Eco-No-Mia." Professor of Gay del Berg Skov-Ho University K.G. Rau in his chickens of political economy (1826-1837) once-de-lil ontoo-re-adequacy, from La-Gayu Uni-Veda-Ko-Kosh, and Passenger hours, Tre-Buchi-Tu Kon-Kretnya Us-Lo-Viy, - Eco-No-MIC Little Ti-ku and National Academy of Sciences sah. RAU OS-NO-VAL PER-BE-RIO-DICE DECIDE ON THE Political Economy - AR-Khiv in Li-Ti-Cheka Eco-No-Mia (1835-1853). In the next time, the variation of the political economy in the Her-Ma NII CO-KOY F. F. Lys Tom and Pre-Sta-Vi- La-Mi-Metz-Ko-Mo-Li-La Cos-Mo-Li-Tiz-Ma and Per-Pe-Tua-Liz-Ma (from Latin Perpetuum - "Eveny"; Under-Ras-Zu-Vasy-Sia "eternal" eco-no-mile in-ko) schools Zh.B. Saya and D. Ri-Car-to. Following the Las-Pi-Tel-Tel-Tel-Tel-Tel-Tel-Tel, as a non-oh-di-ME-RU Eco-No-Mic Little -Be with British Du-Mi-RO-Va-Ni-Farn-Val RO-Na-Calif political economy in the USA G.C. CE-RI, CO-VET-NIK OF PRIAN-DEN-TA A. LIN-KOL-ON ECO-NO-MICH ON-PRO SAM, CRI-TI-KO-WHA-CHE-CI-SIMIS -car-to and mal-ta-sa.