Political economy originated within 16th century western moral philosophy, with theoretical works exploring the administration of states' wealth; political signifying the Greek word polity and economy signifying the Greek word οἰκονομία; household management. The earliest works of political economy are usually attributed to the British scholars Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo, although they were preceded by the work of the French physiocrats, such as François Quesnay and Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot.[7]
In the late 19th century, the term economics gradually began to replace the term political economy with the rise of mathematical modeling coinciding with the publication of the influential textbook Principles of Economics by Alfred Marshall in 1890. Earlier, William Stanley Jevons, a proponent of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocated economics for brevity and with the hope of the term becoming "the recognised name of a science".[8][9] Citation measurement metrics from Google Ngram Viewer indicate that use of the term economics began to overshadow political economy around roughly 1910, becoming the preferred term for the discipline by 1920.[10] Today, the term economics usually refers to the narrow study of the economy absent other political and social considerations while the term political economy represents a distinct and competing approach.
Originally, political economy meant the study of the conditions under which production or consumption within limited parameters was organized in nation-states. In that way, political economy expanded the emphasis on economics, which comes from the Greek oikos (meaning "home") and nomos (meaning "law" or "order"). Political economy was thus meant to express the laws of production of wealth at the state level, quite like economics concerns putting home to order. The phrase économie politique (translated in English to "political economy") first appeared in France in 1615 with the well-known book by Antoine de Montchrétien, Traité de l'economie politique. Other contemporary scholars attribute the roots of this study to the 13th Century Tunisian ArabHistorian and Sociologist, Ibn Khaldun, for his work on making the distinction between "profit" and "sustenance", in modern political economy terms, surplus and that required for the reproduction of classes respectively. He also calls for the creation of a science to explain society and goes on to outline these ideas in his major work, the Muqaddimah. In Al-Muqaddimah Khaldun states, "Civilization and its well-being, as well as business prosperity, depend on productivity and people's efforts in all directions in their own interest and profit" – seen as a modern precursor to Classical Economic thought.
Leading on from this, the French physiocrats were the first major exponents of political economy,[11] although the intellectual responses[12] of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Henry George and Karl Marx to the physiocrats generally receive much greater attention.[13] The world's first professorship in political economy was established in 1754 at the University of Naples Federico II in southern Italy. The Neapolitan philosopher Antonio Genovesi was the first tenured professor. In 1763, Joseph von Sonnenfels was appointed a Political Economy chair at the University of Vienna, Austria. Thomas Malthus, in 1805, became England's first professor of political economy, at the East India Company College, Haileybury, Hertfordshire. At present, political economy refers to different yet related approaches to studying economic and related behaviours, ranging from the combination of economics with other fields to the use of different, fundamental assumptions challenging earlier economic assumptions.
Public choice theory is a microfoundations theory closely intertwined with political economy. Both approaches model voters, politicians and bureaucrats as behaving in mainly self-interested ways, in contrast to a view, ascribed to earlier mainstream economists, of government officials trying to maximize individual utilities from some kind of social welfare function.[18] As such, economists and political scientists often associate political economy with approaches using rational-choice assumptions,[19] especially in game theory[20] and in examining phenomena beyond economics' standard remit, such as government failure and complex decision making in which context the term "positive political economy" is common.[21] Other "traditional" topics include analysis of such public policy issues as economic regulation,[22]monopoly, rent-seeking, market protection,[23] institutional corruption[24] and distributional politics.[25] Empirical analysis includes the influence of elections on the choice of economic policy, determinants and forecasting models of electoral outcomes, the political business cycles,[26]central-bank independence and the politics of excessive deficits.[27] An interesting example would be the publication in 1954 of the first manual of Political Economy in the Soviet Union, edited by Lev Gatovsky, which mixed the classic theoretical approach of the time with the soviet political discourse.[28]
Other important landmarks in the development of political economy include:
New political economy which may treat economic ideologies as the phenomenon to explain, per the traditions of Marxian political economy. Thus, Charles S. Maier suggests that a political economy approach "interrogates economic doctrines to disclose their sociological and political premises.... in sum, [it] regards economic ideas and behavior not as frameworks for analysis, but as beliefs and actions that must themselves be explained".[46] This approach informs Andrew Gamble's The Free Economy and the Strong State (Palgrave Macmillan, 1988), and Colin Hay's The Political Economy of New Labour (Manchester University Press, 1999). It also informs much work published in New Political Economy, an international journal founded by Sheffield University scholars in 1996.[47]
The use of a political economy approach by anthropologists, sociologists, and geographers used in reference to the regimes of politics or economic values that emerge primarily at the level of states or regional governance, but also within smaller social groups and social networks. Because these regimes influence and are influenced by the organization of both social and economic capital, the analysis of dimensions lacking a standard economic value (e.g. the political economy of language, of gender, or of religion) often draws on concepts used in Marxian critiques of capital. Such approaches expand on neo-Marxian scholarship related to development and underdevelopment postulated by André Gunder Frank and Immanuel Wallerstein.
Historians have employed political economy to explore the ways in the past that persons and groups with common economic interests have used politics to effect changes beneficial to their interests.[50]
Political economy and law is a recent attempt within legal scholarship to engage explicitly with political economy literature. In the 1920s and 1930s, legal realists (e.g. Robert Hale) and intellectuals (e.g. John Commons) engaged themes related to political economy. In the second half of the 20th century, lawyers associated with the Chicago School incorporated certain intellectual traditions from economics. However, since the crisis in 2007 legal scholars especially related to international law, have turned to more explicitly engage with the debates, methodology and various themes within political economy texts.[51][52]
Thomas Piketty's approach and call to action which advocated for the re-introduction of political consideration and political science knowledge more generally into the discipline of economics as a way of improving the robustness of the discipline and remedying its shortcomings, which had become clear following the 2008 financial crisis.[53]
In 2010, the only Department of Political Economy in the United Kingdom formally established at King's College London. The rationale for this academic unit was that "the disciplines of Politics and Economics are inextricably linked", and that it was "not possible to properly understand political processes without exploring the economic context in which politics operates".[54]
In 2012, the Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute (SPERI) was founded at The University of Sheffield by professors Tony Payne and Colin Hay. It was created as a means of combining political and economic analyses of capitalism which were viewed by the founders to be insufficient as independent disciplines in explaining the 2008 financial crisis. [55]
Because political economy is not a unified discipline, there are studies using the term that overlap in subject matter, but have radically different perspectives:[57]
Politics studies power relations and their relationship to achieving desired ends.
Philosophy rigorously assesses and studies a set of beliefs and their applicability to reality.
Economics studies the distribution of resources so that the material wants of a society are satisfied; enhance societal well-being.
Sociology studies the effects of persons' involvement in society as members of groups and how that changes their ability to function. Many sociologists start from a perspective of production-determining relation from Karl Marx.[citation needed] Marx's theories on the subject of political economy are contained in his book Das Kapital.
Anthropology studies political economy by investigating regimes of political and economic value that condition tacit aspects of sociocultural practices (e.g. the pejorative use of pseudo-Spanish expressions in the U.S. entertainment media) by means of broader historical, political and sociological processes. Analyses of structural features of transnational processes focus on the interactions between the world capitalist system and local cultures.[citation needed]
Archaeology attempts to reconstruct past political economies by examining the material evidence for administrative strategies to control and mobilize resources.[58] This evidence may include architecture, animal remains, evidence for craft workshops, evidence for feasting and ritual, evidence for the import or export of prestige goods, or evidence for food storage.
Psychology is the fulcrum on which political economy exerts its force in studying decision making (not only in prices), but as the field of study whose assumptions model political economy.
Geography studies political economy within the wider geographical studies of human-environment interactions wherein economic actions of humans transform the natural environment. Apart from these, attempts have been made to develop a geographical political economy that prioritises commodity production and "spatialities" of capitalism.
History documents change, often using it to argue political economy; some historical works take political economy as the narrative's frame.
Ecology deals with political economy because human activity has the greatest effect upon the environment, its central concern being the environment's suitability for human activity. The ecological effects of economic activity spur research upon changing market economy incentives. Additionally and more recently, ecological theory has been used to examine economic systems as similar systems of interacting species (e.g., firms).[59]
Cultural studies examines social class, production, labor, race, gender and sex.
Communications examines the institutional aspects of media and telecommunication systems. As the area of study focusing on aspects of human communication, it pays particular attention to the relationships between owners, labor, consumers, advertisers, structures of production and the state and the power relationships embedded in these relationships.
^ abHacker, Jacob S.; Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander; Pierson, Paul; Thelen, Kathleen (2021), Hertel-Fernandez, Alexander; Hacker, Jacob S.; Thelen, Kathleen; Pierson, Paul (eds.), "The American Political Economy: A Framework and Agenda for Research", The American Political Economy: Politics, Markets, and Power, Cambridge University Press, pp. 4–5, ISBN978-1-316-51636-2, archived from the original on 2022-05-03, retrieved 2022-06-18
^Mill, John Stuart, 1806–1873. (2009). Principles of political economy : with some of their applications to social philosophy. Bibliolife. ISBN978-1116761184. OCLC663099414.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
^Lohmann, Susanne (2008). "rational choice and political science," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.Archived 2013-05-22 at the Wayback Machine
^Alt, James E.; Shepsle, Kenneth (eds.) (1990), Perspectives on Positive Political Economy (Cambridge [UK]; New York: Cambridge University Press). Description and content linksArchived 2013-03-09 at the Wayback Machine and preview.Archived 2023-04-12 at the Wayback Machine
^Krueger, Anne O. (1974). "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking Society," American Economic Review, 64(3), p. 291–303.
^• Bose, Niloy. "corruption and economic growth," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics Online, 2nd Edition, 2010. Abstract.Archived 2010-12-29 at the Wayback Machine • Rose-Ackerman, Susan (2008). "bribery," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.Archived 2013-05-22 at the Wayback Machine
^• Becker, Gary S. (1983). "A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups for Political Influence," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), pp. 371–400.Archived 2011-05-11 at the Wayback Machine • Weingast, Barry R., Kenneth A. Shepsle, and Christopher Johnsen (1981). "The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics," Journal of Political Economy, 89(4), pp. 642–664.Archived 2013-05-10 at the Wayback Machine • Breyer, Friedrich (1994). "The Political Economy of Intergenerational Redistribution," European Journal of Political Economy, 10(1), pp. 61–84. Abstract. • Williamson, Oliver E. (1995). "The Politics and Economics of Redistribution and Inefficiency," Greek Economic Review, December, 17, pp. 115–136, reprinted in Williamson (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford University Press, ch. 8Archived 2023-04-12 at the Wayback Machine, pp. 195–218. • Krusell, Per, and José-Víctor Ríos-Rull (1999). "On the Size of U.S. Government: Political Economy in the Neoclassical Growth Model," American Economic Review, 89(5), pp. 1156–1181. • Galasso, Vincenzo, and Paola Profeta (2002). "The Political Economy of Social Security: A Survey," European Journal of Political Economy, 18(1), pp. 1–29.[permanent dead link]
^• Buchanan, James M. (2008). "public debt," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.Archived 2013-05-22 at the Wayback Machine • Alesina, Alberto, and Roberto Perotti (1995). "The Political Economy of Budget Deficits," IMF Staff Papers, 42(1), pp. 1–31.
^• Timothy, Besley (2007). Principled Agents?: The Political Economy of Good Government, Oxford. Description.Archived 2013-05-10 at the Wayback Machine • _____ and Torsten Persson (2008). "political institutions, economic approaches to," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.Archived 2013-05-22 at the Wayback Machine • North, Douglass C. (1986). "The New Institutional Economics," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(1), pp. 230–237. • _____ (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, in the Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions series. Cambridge. DescriptionArchived 2013-03-09 at the Wayback Machine and preview.Archived 2023-04-30 at the Wayback Machine • Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. DescriptionArchived 2013-03-09 at the Wayback Machine and preview links.Archived 2023-04-12 at the Wayback MachineISBN9780521405997. • _____ (2010). "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, 100(3), pp. 641–672Archived 2013-11-05 at the Wayback Machine.
^Beck, Thorsten et al. (2001). "New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions," World Bank Economic Review,15(1), pp. 165–176.
^Bolton, Patrick, and Gérard Roland (1997). "The Breakup of Nations: A Political Economy Analysis," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), pp. 1057–1090.Archived 2012-04-01 at the Wayback Machine
^Alesina, Alberto, and Roberto Perotti (1994). "The Political Economy of Growth: A Critical Survey of the Recent Literature," World Bank Economic Review, 8(3), pp. 351–371.Archived 2011-11-17 at the Wayback Machine
^Keefer, Philip (2004). "What Does Political Economy Tell Us about Economic Development and Vice Versa?" Annual Review of Political Science, 7, pp. 247–272. PDF.Archived 2023-04-12 at the Wayback Machine
^Perotti, Enrico (2014). "The Political Economy of Finance", in
"Capitalism and Society" Vol. 9, No. 1, Article 1 [2]
^"Chang, H. J. (2002). Breaking the Mould – An Institutionalist Political Economy Alternative to the Neo-Liberal Theory of the Market and State", in "Cambridge Journal of Economics", 26(5), [3]Archived 2019-10-31 at the Wayback Machine
^Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson (2006). "Economic Backwardness in Political Perspective," American Political Science Review, 100(1), pp. 115–131Archived 2012-05-27 at the Wayback Machine.
^Mayer, Charles S. (1987). In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical Political Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 3–6. DescriptionArchived 2013-03-09 at the Wayback Machine and scrollable preview.Archived 2023-04-30 at the Wayback Machine Cambridge.
^Brown, Chris (July 1999). "Susan Strange—a critical appreciation". Review of International Studies. 25 (3): 531–535. doi:10.1017/S0260210599005318 (inactive 1 November 2024). ISSN1469-9044.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
^Cohen, Benjamin J. "The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British IPE so different?", Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 2, May 2007.
^McCoy, Drew R. "The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian America", Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina.