Stewart’s Boswellian memorandum of Burke’s politics: a note on Stewart’s ‘Memorandum of a Visit to Lord Lauderdale with Mr Burke and Adam Smith’

Rising use of digital technologies in the service sector is altering the rules of economic governance and of international trade. Theories of economic development and political economy, such as world-systems theory and Petty’s Law, are being contested by the digital revolution. As technological advances bypass old theory, the service sector is locating globally, with decreasing regard for geography and the assumptions of the old international economic order. This presents new challenges for a legal, commercial and international trade norms and system, which are designed to facilitate tangible cross-border commerce. Old theories of political economy must be revisited to account for the rise of digitally traded services and some, like Petty’s Law, may not survive emergent conditions. The services trade itself is inadequately considered in official government policy, and by international organizations seeking to promote trade, investment and greater cooperation. This work critically evaluates the policy initiatives of major players in trade in light of these trends in the digital economy. While economic institutions claim to advocate policies that are up to date with the new reality of trade, their approaches are still grounded in the superseded economic theories of the twentieth century.

Chapter 41 - Stanley Jevons, The theory of political economy, first edition (1871)

To achieve a multidimensional interpretation of Marxist globalization theory, this paper provides a fecundation network facility based on a decentralized internet, thus overcoming various drawbacks of the network where traditional spatial services are located. In the Marxist theory of globalization, the rise from concrete rigor to abstract rigor is an important dialectical transformation of materialist epistemology. It is implied that Marx, based on the principle of mathematical expression of intuition and detail, refined, and deepened the paradigm itself through mathematical tools and mathematical methods, and used mathematical ideas to condense the theory of political economy, making the property of precision reflected in the logic of the paradigm. The 3PL model is established and the basic principles are accurately understood and grasped from mathematical logic according to the labor theory of value, surplus value theory and reproduction theory in Marxism, which provides an important generative logic for constructing a mathematical paradigm of Marxist political economy. The results of the study show that the output efficiency and benefits of fully cooperative networks (L = 0.92, Q = 281.5), after a long period of competition makes the output of the network less efficient, which in turn makes the network as a whole obtain lower returns (L = 0.73, Q = 96.18). In a competitive coexistence network structure, although there are competitive relationships at the core firm level, the network is not greatly affected by this (L = 0.83, Q = 202.92) instead, it will break the monopoly alliance and enliven the local economy. By constructing a rigorous and sophisticated mathematical and theoretical model, the theory of political economy can be made more abstract and scientific, and the analytical and explanatory power of the theory of political economy can be improved.

Marx’s scientific revolution is not an intervention into a certain specific theory of political economy, but an intervention in the form of critique of fundamental presuppositions of political economy in general. Hence, the theoretical apparatus of the critique of political economy can also be used as a tool for intervening into the field of contemporary social sciences, particularly into neoclassical political economy and modern bourgeois sociology, insofar as they are based precisely on the presuppositions that are the object of Marx’s critique. Following Michael Heinrich’s interpretation of Marx’s critical theory, the article argues that Marx’s critique of political economy consists of four fundamental breaks with the theoretical field of classical political economy, that is, with the latter’s anthropologism, individualism, empiricism and ahistoricism. This critique is primarily directed not toward individual theories of political economy, but toward the presuppositions shared by all theories of political economy.

Object of the analysis. Increasing defence expenditures bring back a discussion weather the national defence industry is necessary to sustain economic welfare of a country, boosts innovations and enhances own military sector. Investigation problem. The use of political economy theories in that case could facilitate further research steps and guide scientists that will look for a precise answer to this issue. The aim of this manuscript is to review political economy theories that can be used in defining defence industry as such, and consider practical applicability options of different methodological approaches in the context of defence industry. To reach this aim, following objectives were designed: 1. Describe political economy phenomena and define its evolution; 2. Evaluate traditions of political economy and define their practical significance; 3. Assess methods used in actual analysis of defence industry and define the main findings. Research methods. While writing this article, the comparative literature analysis method was used. The famous scientists such as R. Abdelal, C., Adam, S. Dercon, G. Agostino, J. P. Dunne, L. Pieroni, M. Blyth, G. Browning, A. Kilmister, J. P. Dunne, E. Skons, D. Braddon, A. Gilpin, A. Goldstein, R. Jacson, G. Sorensen, S. Jevons, R. O. Keohane, C. W. Mitchell, I. D. Salavrakos, A. Sen and R. M. Smith were cited and referenced. All used literature is referenced. This article is structured into two big parts. The first part is devoted to the analysis of political economy subject itself and its approaches towards empirical research. The second part is designed to reveal possible application options of different theoretical political economy approaches in the context of defence industry. Outcomes and conclusions. In the context of current analysis of different political economy theories, different approaches on methodology, analytical side, linkage with defence industry, defence spending and possible insights about investigation possibilities the following conclusions were found: Political economy that originated in the XVII–XVIIIth century and currently is adopting different theoretical approaches in most cases is still relying on “grand” theories such as realism (mercantilism), liberalism, and Marxism. The existing variety of research methodologies and tools suggests the “correct” way to examine features of situation based on selected theory. Researches should be aware that even a proper methodology does not guaranty the reliability of research results due to the complexity of political economy subject itself and its interdependency to both political and economic science features. There are different scholars explaining trends and proposing different theoretical approaches to analyse defence sector and its connections (influence) with state. Current dynamics of defence industry led to renewed debates over whether the increase of the military expenditure enhances or deteriorates economic growth and welfare of the state. There have been numerous studies done in defining military expenditure (also research and development programs in the military sector) impact on local and state economies. Regardless of different methodologies used (econometric analyses, macro econometric models, time series models, demand side model, supply side model, cross-country correlation analyses and historical case study) there was no strong evidence that military expenditure is likely to have the negative economic effects on states. Keywords: political economy, defence industry, military expenditure, defence.

'Political economy' has been the term used for the past 300 years to express the interrelationship between the political and economic affairs of the state. In Theories of Political Economy, first published in 1992, James A. Caporaso and David P. Levine explore some of the more important frameworks for understanding the relationship between politics and economics, including the classical, Marxian, Keynesian, neoclassical, state-centred, power-centred, and justice-centred approaches. The book emphasises both the differences between these frameworks and the issues common to them.

'Political economy' has been the term used for the past 300 years to express the interrelationship between the political and economic affairs of the state. In Theories of Political Economy, first published in 1992, James A. Caporaso and David P. Levine explore some of the more important frameworks for understanding the relationship between politics and economics, including the classical, Marxian, Keynesian, neoclassical, state-centred, power-centred, and justice-centred approaches. The book emphasises both the differences between these frameworks and the issues common to them.

1. introductionThis article addresses a debate in Political Economy that has its origins in the 1870s with, on the one hand, the publication of Stanley Jevons' Theory of Political Economy in 1871 and, on the other, Karl Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme in 1875. It is well known that in his article Marx advocated a communist system of economy in which workers were to be paid in labour tokens and could use these to acquire goods containing the same quantity of labour. Jevons became famous for his role in founding the marginalist school of economics, which, in the West, became the main alternative to the tradition of Classical Political Economy represented by Marx.What has not, until recently, been noticed was that there are actually linkages between the ideas in these two publications, linkages that surfaced in debates in the USSR in the 1960s.The issues addressed here are the feasibility of Marx's idea of an economic calculus based on labour time and on whether such a calculus can best be done using Marx's own definition of labour value, or whether that developed by Jevons should be used instead. We will review Klaus Hagendorf's (2014) advocacy of Jevons style of interpretation of labour value published in this issue, and then go on to present an empirical investigation into the feasibility of calculating labour values. This empirical investigation publishes for the first time an important property: the network structure of an industrial economy. This property means that proposals like those of the Soviet economist Novozhilov to use labour values directly as a tool of economic calculation may be more feasible than has hitherto been thought.Klaus Hagendorf has done political economy a service by pointing out the degree to which Jevons, the founder of marginalism, can still be described as a follower of the labour theory of value. Klaus Hagendorf points out that for Jevons the prices of commodities should be proportional to their relative marginal labour contents and argues that this marginalist interpretation of the labour theory of value is the most scientific one to adopt.1.1. Is Klaus Hagendorf's Claim Justified?Readers will be aware that the conventional interpretation of the labour theory of value emphasises Marx's definition of the value of a commodity being the average amount of labour that society has to devote to its production.The average amount of labour required to make something is not necessarily the same as the marginal amount of labour. The average labour required can in principle be above or below the marginal labour, so the issue of whether to use marginal or average labour content as the definition of value is not theoretically vacuous.Klaus Hagendorf goes on to argue that the Soviet economist Novozhilov was right to redefine the labour theory of value in terms of marginal labour content because this is the appropriate definition for socialist planning. Marginalist economics, Klaus Hagendorf argues, while it is not an appropriate theory for capitalist economy, it is the right theory to use for resource allocation in a socialist economy. In a capitalist economy, he says, monopolistic restrictions mean that marginalist theory is not appropriate, but it does potentially allow a way of computing the optimal allocation of resources in a socialist economy.This thesis of Hagendorf obviously has quite a long and respectable pedigree. Lange (1938), one of the most forceful Western theoretical advocates of socialism in the 1930s, argued from basically the same position as did Dickinson (1933). As economists trained in the marginalist tradition, they used this paradigm to structure their arguments for socialism. But they did not mix this with the labour theory of value. By the time Novozhilov was expressing his ideas in the 1950s, Lange was working for the socialist government in Poland and went on to hold high government office there. If it seems to us now to have been a genuine innovation for Novozhilov to combine marginal arguments with the labour theory of value in a planning context, it is perhaps worth recalling that this is not so far from what Lange was working on in the 1950s and 1960s (Lange 1969) so these sorts of approaches seem to have been part of the spirit of the age among Com-econ economists of the period. …

In this paper the author undertakes a Christian ethical analysis of a prominent new theory of political economy by Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson. The analysis utilizes two commonly juxtaposed Christian sources, Reinhold Niebuhr and Catholic social teaching (cst), which allow for a common Christian analysis while also highlighting the nuance and variations of the Christian view. The author first makes the case for the compatibility of the understanding of basic social justice in Niebuhr and cst. Subsequently, the author expounds Acemoglu and Robinson’s account of the roots of development, poverty, and prosperity and then applies the insights of Niebuhr and cst. The aim is not to argue for the accuracy of Acemoglu and Robinson’s theory, but rather to show that Niebuhr and cst reveal deeper theological and ethical dimensions of this highly regarded empirical account, and that these dimensions compel greater action by the developed nations of the world.

Political economy is a field of study where theorists typically treat polities and markets as separate orders of activity within society. Moreover, the standard mode of analysis treats those entities as existing in states of equilibrium. In contrast, this essay treats polities and markets as entangled and, moreover, as entities that have ecological and emergent character. Among other things, this shift in analytical focus means that turbulence of variable intensity is a key feature to be incorporated into a theory of political economy. It also means that human population systems are open and not closed, which further means that the future is generated through complex interaction inside a societal arena that entails both trade and conflict.

not available

Emergence and Entanglement in a Theory of Political Economy

Despite the centrality of economic theories (including political economic theories) in human geographic research, there is a massive shortage of courses covering this topic in many human geography departments. In this paper, we use the example of a third-semester elective MSc course in political economic theory designed for students in human geography to contribute to this point. The course aims to introduce some essential elements of economic theory, map competing trends and paradigms in economic theory, and teach how economic theories are operationalized in geographic research. As such, it seeks to provide students with a compass to be able to navigate the sprawling field of economic geography. Lakatos’ theory of science and an interpretation of Kolb’s cycle influenced the pedagogical approach used to design (and structure) this course. The course treats paradigms in a competitive and intellectually contextual environment, and students engage with them in a reflective process culminating in the operationalization of economic theories into geographic research. In this paper we reflect on the challenges we have come across in teaching this course and whether we have managed to live up to the aim of providing a compass.

An advantage of using the lens of macroeconomic issues through which to view democratic practice is that there is a large body of macroeconomic theory. This theory derives from the effort to understand the way the economic world works, to explain and predict, and to know what is possible and what is not. For better or worse, the unmistakable message of this chapter is that there is no single, uncontested theory of the way the macroeconomic world works. That means that political disagreement about economic issues is likely to involve differences of opinion and belief about what is realistic and feasible, as well as about what is desired. This chapter shows how macroeconomic theory is, in a sense, political theory. POLITICAL ECONOMICS AND ECONOMIC THEORY: THREE QUESTIONS Economic theory is the source of our most authoritative understanding of the way the macroeconomic world works, and there is an impressive body of such theory. As such, it seeks to identify what is possible; it seeks to identify the consequences of alternative courses of action; and it “defines the norms that determine when certain conditions are to be regarded as policy problems” (Majone, 1989, pp. 23–4). But macroeconomic theory does not speak with one voice. There are competing theories, deriving from competing systems of belief about the way the world works. We shall review a sequence of these theories with an eye to their answers to the following three questions: Does the economy regulate itself? The answer to this question is fundamentally important, because it has obvious implications for the roles of public officials and for the issue whether government should take an active or a passive stance toward economic stabilization.

Journal Article On Certain Passages in Jevons's “Theory of Political Economy” Get access Philip H. Wicksteed Philip H. Wicksteed Search for other works by this author on: Oxford Academic Google Scholar The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 3, Issue 3, April 1889, Pages 293–314, https://doi.org/10.2307/1879440 Published: 01 April 1889