The main representatives of classical political economy. Economic classical school Definition of classical political economy

1. In classical political economy, the priority method of economic analysis is:

A) empirical method;

B) functional method;

B) causal method.

2. The subject of studying classical political economy is:

A) sphere of circulation;

B) the sphere of production;

C) the sphere of circulation and the sphere of production at the same time.

3.According to classical political economy, wages as a worker’s income tend to:

A) to a physiological minimum;

B) to the subsistence level;

B) to the highest possible level.

4.In accordance with classical political economy, money is:

A) artificial invention of people;

B) the most important factor in economic growth;

C) a technical tool, a thing that facilitates exchange.

5.The founder of the class method of analysis, theories of capital, productive labor, and reproduction is:

A) F. Quesnay;

B) A. Smith;

B) K. Marx.

6.What was the basis of the physiocratic system?

A) the primacy of agriculture as the basis of social life;

B) analysis of social reproduction and its categories;

C) the primacy of the sphere of circulation.

A) nominalistic theory of money;

B) metal theory of money;

B) quantity theory of money.

8. In what era did the position of the “INVISIBLE HAND” arise?

A) unregulated market economy;

B) before the market economy;

B) a regulated market economy.

A) F. Quesnay, A. Turgot, A. Smith;

B) A. Serra, W. Stafford;

B) T. Men, A. Montchretien;

D) I. Pososhkov.

10.U. Petty and P. Boisguillebert are the founders of the theory of value, defined by:

A) labor costs (labor theory);

B) production costs (cost theory);

B) marginal utility.

11.According to the classification proposed by F. Quesnay, farmers represent:

A) productive class;

B) class of land owners;

B) sterile class.

12.According to the teaching of F. Quesnay about the “pure product”, the latter is created:

A) in trade;

B) in agricultural production;

B) in industry.

A) A. Turgot;

B) A. Smith;

B) F. Quesnay.

14.What was the original name (at the beginning of the 17th century) of economic theory?

A) economics;

B) the science of wealth;

B) political economy;

D) history economic studies.

A) A. Smith; a) “The Book of Poverty and Wealth”

B) W. Petty; b) “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”

B) I. Pososhkov; c) “Labor is the father of wealth, land is its mother.”

16. Turgot considers labor to be the only source of all wealth:

A) merchant;

B) agriculturist (farmer);

B) artisan;

D) moneylender;

E) peasant community.

17. According to A. Smith, a much greater value to actual wealth and income is added by capital invested:

A) into trade;

B) in agriculture;

B) in industry.

18.According to the methodological position of A. Smith, private interest:

A) inseparable from the general interest;

B) stands above the public;

C) secondary to the public.

19.A. Smith showed that the main incentive for human economic activity is:

A) high rates of development;

B) private interest;

C) advanced technical equipment of production.

20.A. Smith emphasized that the natural price is equalized by the market price due to

A) use value and total utility;

B) exchange value;

B) fluctuations in supply and demand;

D) constant cost of labor, fixed costs;

D) the fact that labor is valuable;

E) three-factor composition;

G) the relationship between the quantities of labor in production.

21. F. Quesnay classified all people involved in agricultural production as:

A) owners;

B) hired workers;

B) infertile;

D) productive.

Introduction

Main part

Chapter 1. General characteristics of the classical direction:

1.1 Definition of classical political economy

1.2. Stages of development of classical political economy

1.3. Features of the subject and method of studying classical political economy

Chapter 2. The first stage of development of classical political economy

2.1. Economic doctrine of W. Petty

2.2. Economic doctrine of P. Boisguillebert

2.3. Economic doctrine of F. Quesnay

Chapter 3. The second stage of development of classical political economy

3.1. Economic doctrine of A. Smith

Chapter 4. The third stage of development of classical political economy

4.1. Economic doctrine of D. Ricardo

4.2. Economic doctrine of Zh.B. Sowing

4.3. Economic doctrine of T. Malthus

Chapter 5. The fourth stage of development of classical political economy

5.1. Economic teachings of J. S. Mill

5.2. Economic teachings of K. Marx

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

This work characterizes the classical direction in the history of economic doctrines. It examines the following range of questions: what led to the displacement of the concept of mercantilism and the two-hundred-year dominance of classical political economy; how the term “classical political economy” is interpreted in economics; what stages does classical political economy cover in its development; what are the features of the subject and method of study of the “classical school”, as well as the main economic theories at the four stages of development of the classical school of political economy.

CHAPTER 1. General characteristics of the classical direction

1.1. Definition of classical political economy

Classical political economy arose when entrepreneurial activity, following the sphere of trade, money circulation and lending operations, also spread to many industries and the sphere of production as a whole. Therefore, already in the manufacturing period, which brought capital employed in the sphere of production to the forefront in the economy, the protectionism of the mercantilists gave way to its dominant position to a new concept - the concept of economic liberalism, based on the principles of non-interference of the state in economic processes, unlimited freedom of competition for entrepreneurs.

This period marked the beginning of a truly new school of political economy, which is called classical primarily for the scientific nature of many of its theories and methodological provisions that underlie modern economic science.

As a result of the disintegration of mercantilism and the strengthening of the growing tendency to limit direct state control over economic activity, “pre-industrial conditions” lost their former significance and “free private enterprise” prevailed. The latter, according to P. Samuelson, led “to conditions of complete laissez faire (i.e., absolute non-interference of the state in business life), events began to take a different turn,” and only “... from the end of the 19th century. in almost all countries there was a steady expansion of the economic functions of the state.”

In fact, the principle of “complete laissez faire” became the main motto of a new direction of economic thought - classical political economy, and its representatives debunked mercantilism and the protectionist policies in the economy it promoted, putting forward an alternative concept of economic liberalism. At the same time, the classics enriched economic science with many fundamental provisions, which in many respects have not lost their relevance today.

It should be noted that for the first time the term “classical political economy” was used by one of its finalists, K. Marx, in order to show its specific place in “bourgeois political economy.” And the specificity, according to Marx, is that from W. Petty to D. Ricardo in England and from P. Boisguillebert to S. Sismondi in France, classical political economy “studied the actual relations of production of bourgeois society.”

In modern foreign economic literature, while paying tribute to the achievements of classical political economy, they do not idealize them. At the same time, in the economic education system of most countries of the world, the identification of the “classical school” as the corresponding section of the course on the history of economic doctrines is carried out primarily from the point of view of the general characteristic features and traits inherent in the works of its authors. This position allows us to classify a number of scientists of the 19th century - followers of the famous A. Smith - among the representatives of classical political economy.

For example, one of the leading economists of our time, Professor of Harvard University J.K. Galbraith, in his book “Economic Theories and Goals of Society” believes that “A. Smith’s ideas were further developed by David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus and especially John Stuart Mill and were called classical system." In the textbook “Economics”, widely distributed in many countries, by an American scientist, one of the first laureates Nobel Prize in economics by P. Samuelson it is also stated that D. Ricardo and J. S. Mill, being “the main representatives of the classical school... developed and improved Smith’s ideas.”

1.2. Stages of development of classical political economy

According to generally accepted estimates, classical political economy originated in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. in the works of W. Petty (England) and P. Boisguillebert (France). The time of its completion is considered from two theoretical and methodological positions. One of them - Marxist - points to the period of the first quarter of the 19th century, and the English scientists A. Smith and D. Ricardo are considered to be the finalists of the school. According to another - the most widespread in the scientific world - the classics exhausted themselves in the last third of the 19th century. through the works of J.S. Mill.

In the development of classical political economy, with a certain convention, four stages can be distinguished.

First stage covers the period from the end of the 17th century. until the beginning of the second half of the 18th century. This is a stage of significant expansion of the sphere of market relations, reasoned refutations of the ideas of mercantilism and its complete debunking. The main representatives of the beginning of this stage, W. Petty and P. Boisguillebert, regardless of each other, were the first in the history of economic thought to put forward the labor theory of value, according to which the source and measure of value is the amount of labor expended on the production of a particular commodity product or good. Condemning mercantilism and based on the causal dependence of economic phenomena, they saw the basis of the wealth and well-being of the state not in the sphere of circulation, but in the sphere of production.

The first stage of classical political economy was completed by the so-called school of physiocrats, which became widespread in France in the middle and early second half of the 18th century. The leading authors of this school, F. Quesnay and A. Turgot, in their search for a source of pure product (national income), along with labor, attached decisive importance to land. Criticizing mercantilism, the physiocrats went even deeper into the analysis of the sphere of production and market relations, although mainly in the field of agriculture, unduly moving away from the analysis of the sphere of circulation.

Second phase The development of classical political economy covers the period of the last third of the 18th century. and is undoubtedly associated with the name and works of A. Smith, the central figure among all its representatives. His “economic man” and the “invisible hand” of providence convinced more than one generation of economists about the natural order and inevitability of the spontaneous action of objective economic laws, regardless of the will and consciousness of people. Largely thanks to him until the 30s. In the 20th century, the provision regarding the complete non-interference of government regulations in free competition was considered irrefutable. And it is about him, as a rule, that they say that “...not a single Western student or scientist can consider himself an economist without knowledge of his (A. Smith - Ya.Ya.) works.”

According to N. Kondratyev, under the influence of the views of A. Smith, among the classics, all their teaching is the preaching of an economic system based on the principle of freedom of individual economic activity as an ideal.” The authors of one of the popular books of the early 20th century. “History of Economic Doctrines” by S. Gide and S. Rist noted that it was mainly the authority of A. Smith that turned money into “a commodity even less necessary than any other commodity, a burdensome commodity that should be avoided whenever possible. This tendency to discredit money, shown by Smith in the fight against mercantilism, they write, will later be picked up by his followers, and having exaggerated it, they will lose sight of some features of money circulation.” Schumpeter claims something similar, saying that A. Smith and his followers "try to prove that money is not important, but at the same time they themselves are not able to consistently adhere to this thesis." And only some condescension to this omission of the classics (primarily A. Smith and D. Ricardo) is made by M. Blaug, believing that “...their skepticism in relation to monetary panaceas was quite appropriate in an economy suffering from a lack of capital and chronic structural unemployment."

It should be noted that the laws of the division of labor and the growth of its productivity discovered by A. Smith (based on materials from the analysis of the pin manufactory) are rightfully considered classical. Modern concepts of a product and its properties, income ( wages, profit), capital, productive and unproductive labor and others.

Third stage The evolution of the classical school of political economy occurs in the first half of the 19th century, when the industrial revolution ended in a number of developed countries. During this period, followers, including A. Smith's students (as many of them called themselves), subjected in-depth study and rethinking to the basic ideas and concepts of their idol, enriching the school with fundamentally new and significant theoretical positions. Among the representatives of this stage, we should especially highlight the French J.B. Say and F. Bastiat, the English D. Ricardo, T. Malthus and N. Senior, the American G. Carey and others. Although these authors, following, as they argued, A .Smith, the origin of the value of goods and services was seen either in the amount of labor expended or in production costs (but this kind cost approach in fact, remained unproven), yet each of them left a rather noticeable mark in the history of economic thought and the formation of market relations.

Thus, J.B. Say, in his dogmatic, from the standpoint of modern economic theory“The Law of Markets” for the first time introduced into the framework of economic research the problems of balance between supply and demand, the realization of the total social product depending on market conditions. The basis of this “law,” as is obvious, both J.B. Say and other classics included the proposition that with flexible wages and moving prices, the interest rate will balance supply and demand, savings and investments at full employment.

D. Ricardo, more than any of his contemporaries, polemicized with A. Smith. But, fully sharing the latter’s views on the income of the “main classes of society,” he was the first to identify the pattern of the ongoing tendency of the rate of profit to decrease, and developed a complete theory about the forms of land rent. His merits also include one of the best justifications for the pattern of changes in the value of money as goods depending on their quantity in circulation.

Fourth stage The development of classical political economy covers the period of the second half of the 19th century, during which the above-mentioned J.S. Mill and K. Marx summarized the best achievements of the school. On the other hand, by this time new, more progressive directions of economic thought were already acquiring independent significance, which later received the name “marginalism” (late 19th century). As for the innovation of the ideas of the Englishman J.S. Mill and K. Marx, who wrote their works in exile from his native Germany, these authors of the classical school, being strictly committed to the position of the efficiency of pricing in competitive conditions and condemning class bias and vulgar apologetics in economic thought , still sympathized with the working class, were turned “toward socialism and reforms.” K. Marx, in addition, especially emphasized the increasing exploitation of labor by capital, which, intensifying the class struggle, should, in his opinion, inevitably lead to the dictatorship of the proletariat, the “withering away of the state” and the equilibrium economy of a classless society.

1 .3. Features of the subject and method of studying classical political economy

When studying the general characteristics of the history of classical political economy, it is necessary to highlight its common features, approaches and trends in terms of the subject and method of study and evaluate them.

Firstly, primary analysis of problems in the sphere of production in isolation from the sphere of circulation, development and application of progressive methodological research techniques, including cause-and-effect, deductive and inductive, logical abstraction. At the same time, an approach from a class perspective to the observable “laws of production” and “productive labor” removed any doubt that the predictions obtained through logical abstraction and deduction should be subjected to experimental verification. As a result, the opposition between the spheres of production and circulation, productive and unproductive labor, characteristic of the classics, became the reason for underestimating the natural relationship of economic entities in these spheres (“human factor”), the reverse influence on the sphere of production of monetary, credit and financial factors and other elements of the sphere of circulation.

When solving practical problems, the classics gave answers to basic questions by posing these questions, as N. Kondratiev put it, “evaluatively.” This circumstance also did not contribute to the objectivity and consistency of economic analysis and theoretical generalization of the classical school of political economy.

Secondly, Based on cause-and-effect analysis, calculations of average and total values of economic indicators, the classics tried to identify the mechanism of origin of the value of goods and fluctuations in the price level on the market not in connection with the “natural nature” of money and its quantity in the country, but in connection with production costs.

However, the cost principle of determining the price level by the classical school was not linked to another important aspect of market economic relations - the consumption of a product (service) with a changing need for a particular good with the addition of a unit of this good.

Third , the category “cost” was recognized by the authors of the classical school as the only initial category of economic analysis, from which, as in a family tree diagram, other inherently derivative categories bud off (grow). In addition, this kind of simplification of analysis and systematization led the classical school to the fact that economic research itself seemed to imitate mechanical adherence to the laws of physics, i.e. the search for purely internal causes of economic well-being in society without taking into account psychological, moral, legal and other factors of the social environment.

Fourth , While exploring the problems of economic growth and improving the well-being of the people, the classics did not simply proceed from the principle of achieving an active trade balance (positive balance), but tried to substantiate the dynamism and equilibrium of the state of the country's economy. However, they did this without serious mathematical analysis or the use of mathematical modeling methods economic problems, allowing you to choose the best (alternative) option from a certain number of states of the economic situation.

Fifthly, money, which has long been traditionally considered an artificial invention of people, during the period of classical political economy was recognized as a product spontaneously released in the commodity world, which cannot be “cancelled” by any agreements between people. Among the classics, the only one who demanded the abolition of money was P. Boisguillebert. At the same time, many authors of the classical school until the middle of the 19th century. did not attach due importance to the various functions of money, highlighting mainly one - the function of a medium of exchange, i.e. treating a monetary commodity as a thing, as a technical means convenient for exchange. The underestimation of other functions of money was due to a misunderstanding of the reverse influence of monetary factors on the sphere of production.

Chapter 2. The first stage of development of classical political economy

2.1. Economic doctrine of W. Petty

William Petty (1623-1687) - the founder of classical political economy in England, who outlined his economic views in works published in the 60-80s of the 17th century.

In the works of W. Petty, the subject of study of economic science (political economy) is the analysis of problems in the sphere of production. This is particularly obvious from this scientist’s conviction that the creation and increase of wealth supposedly occurs exclusively in the sphere of material production, and without any participation in this process of trade and commercial capital.

His views were transitional from mercantilism to classical political economy. He explained such economic phenomena as the price of goods, wages, the price of land and others. Petty distinguished between the “natural price” of a product (the value determined by labor) and the market price. He was the first to formulate the rudiments of the theory of labor value. He considered only one type of labor to be a direct source of value - the extraction of gold and silver (i.e., monetary material).

Petty's theory of value is directly related to his doctrine of wages and rent. He reasoned like this: the commodity is not labor power, but labor, and wages are the price of labor; you just need to determine its value.

Rent, according to Petty, is the cost of the crop (it depends on the quality of the plot) without taking into account production costs, i.e. excess value created by labor over wages. Petty does not consider profit separately. Petty’s teaching on the price of land is interesting: the sale of land is the sale of the right to receive rent and should be calculated from the amount of annual rent (without loan interest).

2.2. Economic doctrine of P. Boisguillebert

Pierre Boisguilbert (1646-1714) - the founder of classical political economy in France. Like the founder of a similar school of economic thought in England, W. Petty, he was not a professional scientist or economist.

P. Boisguillebert, like W. Petty, contrasting the mercantilists with his own vision of the essence of wealth, came to the so-called concept of social wealth, the latter, in his opinion, manifests itself not in the physical mass of money, but in the whole variety of useful goods and things.

Thus, according to Boisguillebert, not the increase in money, but, on the contrary, the increase in the production of “food and clothing” is the main task of economic science. Like W. Petty, Boisguillebert considers the subject of studying political economy to be the analysis of problems in the sphere of production, recognizing this sphere as the most significant and priority in comparison with the sphere of circulation.

2.3. Economic doctrine of F. Quesnay

The formation of economic thought in France in this period is associated with the ideas of Pierre Boisguillebert and Francois Quesnay (1694-1774).

Francois Quesnay in 1758 created his “Economic Table”, which became the basis for the physiocrats who turned to the sphere of production, looking for a source of surplus value there. They limited this area to agriculture only.

In his famous “Economic Table” F. Quesnay performed the first scientific analysis of the circulation of economic life, i.e. social reproductive process. The ideas of this work indicate the need to comply with and reasonably predict certain national economic proportions in the structure of the economy. He identified a relationship, which he characterized as follows: “Reproduction is constantly renewed by costs, and costs are renewed by reproduction.”

Further, Quesnay put forward the concept of “natural order,” by which he understood an economy with free competition, the spontaneous play of market prices without government intervention. Quesnay also argued that when exchanging things of equal value, wealth is not created and profit does not arise, so he looked for profit outside the sphere of circulation.

Chapter 3. The second stage of development of classical political economy

3.1. Economic teachings of Adam Smith

In the second half of the 18th century, favorable conditions developed in England for the rise of economic thought. Classical political economy reached its highest development in the works of British scientists Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Like their predecessors, the founders of the classical school viewed economics as the study of wealth and how to increase it.

Adam Smith's main work on political economy is the fundamental work - “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.” Smith's book is divided into five parts. In the first, he analyzes issues of value and income, in the second, the nature of capital and its accumulation. In them he outlined the foundations of his teaching. In other parts, he examines the development of the European economy during the era of feudalism and the emergence of capitalism, the history of economic thought and public finance.

Adam Smith explains that the main theme of his work is economic development: the forces that operate temporarily and control the wealth of nations.

“An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of Wealth” is the first full-fledged work in economic science, setting out the general basis of the science - the theory of production and distribution. Then an analysis of the effect of these abstract principles on historical material and, finally, a number of examples of their application in economic policy. Moreover, this entire work is imbued with the lofty idea of an “obvious and simple system of natural freedom,” towards which, as it seemed to Adam Smith, the whole world was moving. The central motif - the soul of The Wealth of Nations - is the action of the "invisible hand"; We get our bread not by the baker’s mercy, but from his selfish interest. Smith was able to guess the most fruitful idea that under certain social conditions, which we today describe with the term “working competition,” private interests can indeed be harmoniously combined with the interests of society. A market economy, not governed by a collective will, not subordinated to a single plan, nevertheless follows strict rules of behavior. The influence on the market situation of the actions of one individual person, one of many, may be imperceptible. Indeed, he pays the prices that are asked of him, and can choose the quantity of goods at these prices based on his greatest benefit. But the totality of these individual actions sets prices; Each individual buyer is subject to prices, and the prices themselves are subject to the totality of all individual reactions. Thus, the “invisible hand” of the market ensures a result that does not depend on the will and intentions of the individual.

Moreover, this market automation may well, in a certain sense, optimize the allocation of resources. Smith lifted the burden of proof and created a postulate: decentralized, atomistic competition in a certain sense provides “maximum satisfaction of needs.” Undoubtedly, Smith gave deep meaning to his doctrine of "maximum satisfaction of needs." He showed that:

· Free competition strives to equate prices to production costs, optimizing the distribution of resources within these industries;

· Free competition in factor markets tends to equalize the net advantages of these factors in all industries and thereby establishes optimal distribution resources between industries.

He did not say that various factors would be combined in optimal proportions in production or that goods would be optimally distributed among consumers. He also did not say that economies of scale and side effects of production often interfere with the achievement of a competitive optimum, although the essence of this phenomenon is reflected in his discussions of public works. But he did take the first step towards the theory of optimal allocation of given resources under conditions of perfect competition.

To be fair, his own belief in the benefits of the “invisible hand” has little to do with considerations about the efficiency of resource allocation in the static conditions of perfect competition. He considered a decentralized price system desirable because it produces dynamic results: it expands the scale of the market, multiplies the advantages associated with the division of labor - in a word, it works like a powerful engine that ensures capital accumulation and income growth.

Smith was not content with declaring that a free market economy provides the best way to live. He pays a lot of attention to the precise definition of the institutional structure that would guarantee best job market forces.

He understands that:

· personal interests can equally hinder and contribute to the growth of the welfare of society;

· the market mechanism will establish harmony only when it is included in the appropriate legal and institutional framework.

Chapter 4. The third stage of development of classical political economy

4.1. Economic doctrine of D. Ricardo

Ricardo's entire economic system arose as a continuation, development and criticism of Smith's theory. At the time of Ricardo, the industrial revolution was in its early stages, and the essence of capitalism was far from fully manifested. Therefore, Ricardo's teaching continues the ascending line of development of the classical school.

The peculiarity of Ricardo's position is that the subject of political economy is the study of the sphere of distribution. In his main theoretical work, Elements of Political Economy and Taxation, Ricardo writes, referring to the distribution of the social product: “To determine the laws that govern this distribution is the main task of political economy.” One may get the impression that on this issue Ricardo takes a step back compared to A. Smith, since he puts forward the sphere of distribution as the subject of political economy. However, in reality this is not at all the case. First of all, Ricardo did not exclude the sphere of production from the object of his analysis. Moreover, the emphasis that Ricardo places on the sphere of distribution is intended to highlight the social form of production as its own subject of political economy. And although Ricardo did not bring the problem to its full scientific solution, the significance of such a formulation of the question in the works of the finalist of the classical school cannot be overestimated.

In Ricardo's writings, in fact, there is an attempt to distinguish the production relations of people in contrast to the productive forces of society and to declare these relations their own subject of political economy. Ricardo actually identifies the entire set of production relations with distribution relations, thereby significantly limiting the scope of political economy. Nevertheless, Ricardo gave a deep interpretation of the subject of political economy and came close to the secrets of the social mechanism of the capitalist economy. For the first time in the history of political economy, he based the economic theory of capitalism on the labor theory of value, which reflects the general relations most typical of capitalism, namely commodity relations.

What is new that Ricardo introduced into the labor theory of value is due, first of all, to the change in the historical situation, the transition manufacturing capitalism to machine-stage capitalism. Ricardo's important merit is that, relying on the labor theory of value, he came closer to understanding the single basis of all capitalist income - profit, ground rent, interest. Although he did not discover surplus value and the law of surplus value, Ricardo clearly saw that labor is the only source of value and, therefore, the income of classes and social groups not participating in production are actually the result of the appropriation of others' unpaid labor.

Ricardo's theory of profit has two major contradictions:

· The contradiction between the law of value and the law of surplus value, which was expressed in Ricardo’s inability to explain the origin of surplus value from the point of view of the law of value;

· The contradiction between the law of value and the law of average profit, which was expressed in the fact that he was unable to explain the average profit and the price of production from the position of the theory of labor value.

The main drawback of D. Ricardo's theory is his identification of labor power as a commodity with its function - labor. Thus, he avoids the problem of clarifying the essence and mechanism of capitalist exploitation. But, nevertheless, Ricardo comes quite close to the correct quantitative determination of the price of labor, in fact the cost of labor power. Distinguishing between the natural and market prices of labor, he believes that under the influence of supply and demand, the natural price of labor is reduced to the cost of a certain amount of means of subsistence, necessary not only for the maintenance of workers and the continuation of their family, but also, to a certain extent, for development. Consequently, the natural price of labor is a cost category.

According to Ricardo, the market price of labor fluctuates around the natural price under the influence natural movement working population. If the market price of labor exceeds the natural price, the number of workers increases significantly, the supply of labor increases, which at a certain stage increases the demand for it. Due to these circumstances, unemployment arises and the market price of labor begins to fall. Its decline continues until the size of the working population begins to decline and the supply of labor decreases in accordance with the amount of demand for it. At the same time, the market price of labor decreases in relation to the natural price. Thus, D. Ricardo’s interpretation of the natural price of labor is quite contradictory.

David Ricardo was the finalizer of bourgeois political economy precisely because the scientific truths he revealed became increasingly socially dangerous for the political and economic positions of the ruling class.

4.2. Economic doctrine of Jean Baptiste Say

Official economic science in France in the first half of the 19th century. represented by the “Say school”. "Say's School" praised the capitalist entrepreneur, preached the harmony of class interests, and opposed the labor movement.

In 1803, Say published an essay called “A Treatise of Political Economy, or a Simple Statement of the Method in which Wealth is Generated, Distributed, and Consumed.” This book, which Say subsequently revised and expanded many times for new editions (only five were published during his lifetime), remained his main work. The labor theory of value, which the Scot followed, although not entirely consistently, gave way to a “pluralistic” interpretation, where value was made dependent on a number of factors: the subjective utility of the product, the costs of its production, demand and supply. Smith's ideas about the exploitation of wage labor by capital (i.e., elements of the theory of surplus value) completely disappeared from Say, giving way to the theory of factors of production. Say followed Smith in his economic liberalism. He demanded "cheap government" and advocated minimizing government intervention in the economy. In this respect, he also adhered to the physiocratic tradition. In 1812, Say published the second edition of the Treatise. In 1828-1930 Say published the 6-volume “Complete Course of Practical Political Economy,” which, however, did not provide anything new compared to the “Treatise.”

In the first edition of the Treatise, Say wrote four pages about sales. They presented in a vague form the idea that general overproduction of goods in the economy and economic crises were impossible in principle. Any production itself generates income, with which goods of appropriate value are necessarily purchased. Aggregate demand in an economy is always equal to aggregate supply. In his opinion, only partial imbalances can arise: too much of one product is produced, too little of another. But this is being corrected without a general crisis. In 1803, Say formulated a law according to which the supply of goods always gives rise to a corresponding demand. Those. by this, he excludes the possibility of a general crisis of overproduction, and also believes that free pricing and minimizing state intervention in the market economy will cause automatic regulation of the market.

Production not only increases the supply of goods, but also, by covering the necessary costs of production, creates demand for these goods. “Products are paid for products” - this is the essence of Say’s law of markets.

The demand for the products of any industry must increase in real terms when the supply of all industries increases, because it is supply that creates the demand for the products of that industry. Say's Law therefore cautions us against applying to macroeconomic indicators judgments derived from microeconomic analysis. A single good can be produced in excess relative to all other goods, but relative overproduction of all goods at once cannot occur.

If we talk about the application of Say's law to the real world, then this affirms the unreality of excess demand for money. “Unreality” in this case can hardly mean logical impossibility. It must be understood that the demand for money cannot always be excess, because this corresponds to a situation of disequilibrium.

Using Say's arguments, the bourgeoisie put forward progressive demands for a reduction in the bureaucratic state apparatus, freedom of enterprise and trade.

4.3. Economic doctrine of T. Malthus

A representative of the classical school, the Englishman T. Malthus, made a bright, original contribution to economic science. T. Malthus's treatise "An Essay on the Law of Population", published in 1798, made and continues to make such a powerful impression on the reading public that discussions about this work are still ongoing. The range of assessments in these discussions is extremely wide: from “brilliant foresight” to “anti-scientific nonsense.”

T. Malthus was not the first to write about demographic problems, but, perhaps, he was the first to try to propose a theory describing the patterns of population change. As for his system of evidence and statistical illustrations, a lot of claims were made against them already at that time. In the 18th-19th centuries, the theory of T. Malthus became known mainly due to the fact that its author first proposed a refutation of the widespread thesis that human society can be improved through social reform. For economic science, T. Malthus’s treatise is valuable for its analytical conclusions, which were subsequently used by other theorists of the classical and some other schools.

As we know, A. Smith proceeded from the fact that the material wealth of society is the ratio between the volume of consumer goods and the population. The founder of the classical school paid the main attention to the study of the patterns and conditions of growth in production volume, but he practically did not consider issues related to the patterns of population changes. T. Malthus took upon himself this task.

From the point of view of T. Malthus, there is a contradiction between the “instinct of procreation” and the limited availability of land suitable for agricultural production. Instincts force humanity to reproduce at a very high speed, “in geometric progression.” In turn, agriculture, and only it produces the food products necessary for people, is capable of producing these products at a much lower speed, “in arithmetic progression.” Consequently, any increase in food production will sooner or later be absorbed by the increase in population. Thus, the cause of poverty is the relationship between the rate of population growth and the rate of increase in living goods. Any attempt to improve living conditions through social reform is thereby negated by the growing mass of people.

T. Malthus associates the relatively low growth rate of food products with the action of the so-called law of diminishing soil fertility. The meaning of this law is that the amount of land suitable for agricultural production is limited. The volume of production can grow only due to extensive factors, and each subsequent plot of land is included in the economic turnover with more and more costs, the natural fertility of each subsequent land plot lower than the previous one, and therefore the overall level of fertility of the entire land fund as a whole tends to decrease. Progress in the field of agricultural technology in general is very slow and is not able to compensate for the decline in fertility.

Thus, endowing people with the ability for limitless reproduction, nature, through economic processes, imposes on the human race restrictions that regulate population growth. Among these limiters, T. Malthus identifies: moral limiters and poor health, which lead to a decrease in the birth rate, as well as vicious life and poverty, which lead to an increase in mortality. The decline in the birth rate and the increase in mortality are ultimately determined by the limited means of subsistence.

From this formulation of the problem, in principle, completely different conclusions can be drawn. Some commentators and interpreters of T. Malthus saw in his theory a misanthropic doctrine that justifies poverty and calls for wars as a method of eliminating the surplus population. Others believe that T. Malthus laid the theoretical foundations for the policy of “family planning,” which has been widely used over the past thirty years in many countries around the world. T. Malthus himself only emphasized one thing in every possible way - it is necessary for each person to take care of himself and be fully responsible for his own hindsight.

Chapter 5. The fourth stage of development of classical political economy

5.1. Economic teachings of J. S. Mill

John Stuart Mill is one of the finalists of classical political economy and “a recognized authority in scientific circles whose research goes beyond the boundaries of technical economics.”

J.S. Mill published his first Essays on Political Economy when he was 23 years old, i.e. in 1829. In 1843, his philosophical work “System of Logic” appeared, which brought him fame. The main work (in five books, like A. Smith) entitled “Fundamentals of Political Economy and Some Aspects of Their Application to Social Philosophy” was published in 1848.

J.S. Mill adopted the Ricardian view on the subject of political economy, highlighting the “laws of production” and “laws of distribution.”

On the theory of value, J.S. Mill examined the concepts of “exchange value”, “use value”, “value” and some others; he draws attention to the fact that value (value) cannot increase for all goods at the same time, since value represents is a relative concept.

Wealth, according to Mill, consists of goods that have exchange value as a characteristic property. “A thing for which nothing can be obtained in return, no matter how useful or necessary it may be, is not wealth... For example, air, although it is an absolute necessity for a person, has no price on the market, since it can be obtained practically free of charge." But as soon as the limitation becomes perceptible, the thing immediately acquires exchange value. In monetary terms The value of a product is its price.

The value of money is measured by the number of goods with which it can be purchased. "In other words equal conditions the value of money changes in inverse proportion to the quantity of money: any increase in quantity lowers its value, and any decrease increases it in exactly the same proportion... This is a specific property of money.” We begin to understand the importance of money in the economy only when the monetary mechanism malfunctions.

Prices are directly set by competition, which arises due to the fact that buyers try to buy cheaper, and sellers try to sell more expensive. With free competition, the market price corresponds to the equality of supply and demand. On the contrary, “the monopolist can, at his discretion, set any high price, as long as it does not exceed that which the consumer cannot or will not pay; but it cannot do this only by limiting supply.”

Over a long period of time, the price of a product cannot be lower than the cost of its production, since no one wants to produce at a loss. Therefore, a state of stable equilibrium between supply and demand “occurs only when objects are exchanged for each other in proportion to their production costs.”

Mill refers to capital as the accumulated supply of products of labor that arises as a result of savings and exists “through its constant reproduction.” Savings themselves are understood as “abstaining from current consumption for the sake of future benefits.” Therefore, savings grow along with the interest rate.

Production activity is limited by the size of capital. However, “every increase in capital leads or can lead to a new expansion of production, and without a certain limit... If there are people capable of working and food for their sustenance, they can always be used in some kind of production.” This is one of the main provisions that distinguishes classical economics from more recent ones.

Mill acknowledges, however, that there are other limitations to the development of capital. One of them is the decline in returns to capital, which he attributes to the fall in the marginal productivity of capital. Thus, an increase in the volume of agricultural production “can never be achieved otherwise than by increasing the input of labor in a proportion that increases the one in which the volume of agricultural production increases.”

In general, when presenting the question of profit, Mill tends to adhere to the views of Ricardo. The emergence of an average rate of profit causes profits to become proportional to the capital employed, and prices to be proportional to costs. “So that profits can be equal where costs are equal, i.e. costs of production, things must be exchanged for each other in proportion to the costs of their production: things whose production costs are the same must have the same value, because only in this way will the same costs bring the same income.”

Mill analyzes the essence of money based on the simple quantity theory of money and the theory of market interest.

Mill's work marked the completion of the development of classical economics, which began with Adam Smith.

5.2. Economic teachings of Karl Marx

One of the fundamental economic doctrines of the 19th century is Marxism. The ideas of Marx and Engels were presented in many works, but the main one, containing the economic concept of Marxism in the most expanded form, is considered “Capital”.

The first volume of Capital contains the definition of the concepts of value, exchange value, forms of value and their development. The study of forms of value, from simple to monetary, was important for studying the essence and origin of money. An important conclusion of Marx was the proposition that in conditions of spontaneous commodity production, the economic relations of people are manifested through the relations of things. This gives rise to commodity fetishism.

Next, Marx analyzes the process of exploitation of hired labor, formulates the doctrine of surplus value, which reveals the essence of labor power as a commodity, its common features with ordinary goods and specific features as a commodity of a special kind. In addition, Marx considers the process of production of surplus value. Of particular importance in Marx’s study of the mechanism for creating surplus value is the analysis of constant and variable capital, as well as the two main ways of increasing surplus value: by lengthening the working day and by reducing the necessary working time. The main conclusion of the first volume of Capital is the idea of the historical tendency of the capitalist direction.

In the second volume of Capital Marx examines the process of circulation of capital. He examines the metamorphoses of capital and their circulation, the circulation of capital, the reproduction and circulation of all social capital. Of great importance in the development of the Marxist doctrine of capital and its structure was the division of capital into fixed and circulating capital.

Marx bases his analysis of the reproduction of all social capital on its division into two divisions – the production of means of production and the production of means of consumption. Using this division, Marx constructs his schemes of simple and expanded reproduction. Based on the analysis of these schemes, the movement of the social product is studied both within each division and between them.

The third volume of “Capital” contains a study of the process of capitalist production taken as a whole. It reveals the dialectical unity of the process of reproduction and circulation of capital, examines the transformation of surplus value into profit, profit into average profit, and value into the price of production. In addition, loan capital and interest are examined. Marx shows that loan capital is an isolated part of industrial capital, that in loan interest the fetishization of production relations reaches its highest level. The study of transformed forms of surplus value ends with an analysis of land rent.

In general, the economic theory of Marxism had a great influence on the development of European, and especially Russian, economic science.

Conclusion

The classical school of political economy is one of the mature trends in economic thought that has left a deep mark in the history of economic teachings. The economic ideas of the classical school have not lost their significance to this day. The classical movement originated in the 17th century and flourished in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The greatest merit of the classics is that they placed labor as a creative force and value as the embodiment of value at the center of economics and economic research, thereby laying the foundation for the labor theory of value. The classical school became the herald of the ideas of economic freedom and the liberal direction in economics. Representatives of the classical school developed a scientific understanding of surplus value, profit, taxes, and land rent. In fact, economic science was born in the depths of the classical school.

The main ideas of classical political economy are:

Bibliography:

2. Bartenev A., Economic theories and schools, M., 1996.

3. Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. M.: "Delo Ltd", 1994.

4. Yadgarov Y.S. History of Economic Thought. M., 2000.

5. Galbraith J.K. Economic theories and goals of society. M.: Progress, 1979.

6. Zhid Sh., Rist Sh. History of economic teachings. M.: Economics, 1995.

7. Kondratyev N.D. Favorite op. M.: Economics, 1993.

8. Negeshi T. History of economic theory. - M.: Aspect - press, 1995.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Introduction

1. General characteristics of classical political economy

2. The main representatives of classical political economy

2.1 "Political Arithmetic" by William. Petty

2.4 Treatise of Political Economy by Jean Baptiste Say

Conclusion

Bibliography

classic political economy petty smith

Introduction

The topic of my test work does not seem relevant today. Some economists consider it unnecessary to turn to the theories and views of the past, because these theories and views have become “overgrown with shells” and have lost their significance, and therefore one should not waste time getting to know them.

Those who hold such a purely negative opinion are relatively few. The vast majority of specialists do not share it.

The purpose of my work is to characterize one of the trends in the history of economic doctrines, namely classical political economy: the general features that characterize this trend, its most famous representatives and their contribution to economic science.

The “classics” presented the processes occurring in the economy in a holistic, most enriched form as a sphere of interconnected laws and categories, as a logically coherent system of relations.

The classical school laid a strong foundation for economic theory, which opened the way to further improvement, deepening and development.

Studying evolution economic concepts, we strive to understand how the process of forming and enriching our knowledge about economics unfolds, how and why many ideas of the past remain relevant today, and how they influence our modern ideas.

1. General characteristics of classical political economy

1.1 Definition of classical political economy

The classical school of political economy is one of the mature trends in economic thought that has left a deep mark in the history of economic teachings. The economic ideas of the classical school have not lost their significance to this day. The classical movement originated in the 17th century and flourished in the 18th and early 19th centuries. The greatest merit of the classics is that they placed labor as a creative force and value as the embodiment of value at the center of economics and economic research, thereby laying the foundation for the labor theory of value. The classical school became the herald of the ideas of economic freedom and the liberal direction in economics. Representatives of the classical school developed a scientific understanding of surplus value, profit, taxes and land rent. In fact, economic science was born in the depths of the classical school.

Classical political economy arose when entrepreneurial activity, following the sphere of trade, money circulation and lending operations, also spread to many industries and the sphere of production as a whole. Therefore, already in the manufacturing period, which brought capital employed in the sphere of production to the forefront in the economy, the protectionism of the mercantilists gave way to its dominant position to a new concept - the concept of economic liberalism, based on the principles of state non-interference in economic processes, unlimited freedom of competition for entrepreneurs.

For the first time, the term “classical political economy” was used by one of its finalists, K. Marx, in order to show its specific place in “bourgeois political economy.” And the specificity, according to Marx, is that from W. Petty to D. Ricardo in England and from P. Boisguillebert to S. Sismondi in France, classical political economy “studied the actual relations of production of bourgeois society.”

Emphasis on the analysis of problems of production and distribution of material goods;

Development and application of progressive methodological research techniques;

The core of the economic analysis of the classics is the problem of value;

All the classics interpreted value as a quantity determined by production costs;

Perception economic system as a system similar to the objects of study in physics of that time (more precisely, mechanics). This, in turn, led to the following features of the economic analysis of the classical school: the conviction that a market (capitalist) economy is dominated by universal and objective (economic) laws; and ignoring the subjective psychological factors of economic life.

Underestimation of the role of money and the influence of the sphere of circulation on the sphere of production.

Money was perceived by the classics as a technical means that helped facilitate exchange. The classics ignored the role of money as the most liquid means of storing value. The finisher of classical political economy, J. S. Mill, wrote: “In short, it is scarcely possible to find in social economy a thing more insignificant in its importance than money, unless it touches on the way in which time and labor are saved”;

Great emphasis on studying the “laws of motion”, i.e. patterns of trends, dynamics, capitalist economy.

Negative attitude (with rare exceptions such as J. S. Mill) towards active government intervention in the economy. The classics, following the physiocrats, advocated the ideology of laissez-faire.

1.2 Stages of development of classical political economy

According to the generally accepted assessment, classical political economy originated in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. in the works of W. Petty (England) and P. Boisguillebert (France). The time of its completion is considered from two theoretical and methodological positions. One of them, Marxist, points to the period of the first quarter of the 19th century, and the English scientists A. Smith and D. Ricardo are considered to be the finalists of the school. According to the most widespread theory in the scientific world, the classics exhausted themselves in the last third of the 19th century. by the works of J. S. Mill. In the development of classical political economy, with a certain convention, four stages can be distinguished.

Firststage covers the period from the end of the 17th century. until the beginning of the second half of the 18th century. This is a stage of significant expansion of the sphere of market relations, reasoned refutations of the ideas of mercantilism and its complete debunking. The first representative and progenitor of the classical school should be considered the English economist W. Petty, whom Marx called “the father of political economy and, in some way, the inventor of statistics.”

Secondstage The development of classical political economy covers the period of the last third of the 18th century. and is associated with the name and works of A. Smith. His influence affected more than one school.

Thirdstage The evolution of the classical school dates back to the first half of the 19th century, when the industrial revolution ended in a number of developed countries. During this period, Smith's followers subjected to in-depth study and rethinking the basic ideas and concepts of their idol, enriching the school with fundamentally new and significant theoretical positions. Representatives of this stage include J.B. Say, the Englishmen D., Ricardo, T. Malthus and N. Senior, and others. Each of them left a fairly noticeable mark in the history of economic thought and the formation of market relations.

Fourth The final stage of development of classical political economy covers the period of the second half of the 19th century, during which J. S. Mill and K. Marx summarized the best achievements of the school. On the other hand, by this time new, more progressive trends in economic thought, which later received the names “marginalism” (late 19th century) and “institutionalism” (early 20th century), were already acquiring independent significance.

2. The main representatives of classical political economy

2.1 "Political Arithmetic" by William Petty

The formation of the classical school was started by William Petty (1623-1687). He is called the founder of statistics, a man who expressed many interesting thoughts and conclusions in fragments, opening the way to the creation of economic theory, economic science.

Petty was not interested in the external manifestation, but in the essence of economic processes; he tried to “explain the mysterious nature” of taxes and their consequences, money rent, land rent, money, the origins of wealth. In his opinion, the subject of the study of political economy is, first of all, the analysis of problems in the sphere of production; he believed that the creation and increase of wealth occurs exclusively in the sphere of material production.

In his Treatise on Taxes and Duties, Petty concludes that “there is a certain measure or proportion of money necessary for the carrying on of the trade of the country.” Excess or lack of money against this measure will harm it. A decrease in the metallic content of money cannot be a source of wealth.

In his works, he examined what factors are involved in the production of products and the creation of wealth. Petty identifies four factors. The first two - land and labor - are basic. He believes that “the assessment of all objects should be reduced to two natural denominators: land and labor, i.e. we should say: the value of a ship or a frock coat is equal to the value of such and such an amount of labor, because both - the ship and the frock coat - were produced by land and human labor.”

The other two factors involved in creating a product are not the main ones. These are the qualifications, skill of the worker and the means of his labor - tools, supplies and materials. They make work productive. But both of these factors cannot exist independently, i.e. without labor and land.

Thus, Petty considered two measures of value - labor and land. In practice, he proceeded from the fact that in any type of labor there is something in common that allows all types of labor to be compared with each other.

W. Petty believed that wealth is created primarily by labor and its results.

Petty expressed a number of theses that contain the starting points of the theory of value. Money has value. The amount of money that can be received for a product determines its value. They are determined not directly through labor costs, but indirectly through the costs of producing money (silver and gold) offered for these products. It is not all labor that creates value, but that which is spent on the production of silver.

The income of entrepreneurs and landowners was characterized by W. Petty through the essentially unified concept of “rent”. In particular, calling the difference between the cost of bread and the costs of its production land rent, he substituted it for such a concept as the farmer's profit.

A hundred years before A. Smith, W. Petty anticipated and put forward many ideas, which were later clarified, brought into logical order, and freed from some contradictions and inconsistencies by A. Smith.

2.2 Adam Smith: "An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations"

Adam Smith is called the founder of the classical school. It was A. Smith (1723-1790), professor and taxonomist, armchair scientist and encyclopedic educated researcher, who developed and presented the economic picture of society as a system.

A. Smith's work “The Wealth of Nations” is not a collection of recommendations, but a work that sets out a certain concept in a systematized form. It is full of examples, historical analogies, and references to economic practice.

Labortheorycost

What Petty expressed in the form of conjectures, Adam Smith substantiated as a system, an expanded concept. “The wealth of a people consists not in land alone, not in money alone, but in all things that are suitable to satisfy our needs and to increase our pleasures in life.”

Unlike the mercantilists and physiocrats, Smith argued that the source of wealth should not be sought in any specific occupation. Wealth is the product of the total labor of everyone - farmers, artisans, sailors, merchants, i.e. representatives of various types of work and professions. The source of wealth, the creator of all values, is labor.

According to Smith, the true creator of wealth is "the annual labor of every nation" directed to its annual consumption. In modern terminology, this is the gross national product (GNP).

He distinguishes between those types of labor that are embodied in material things and those that, like the labor of a domestic servant, are a service, and services “disappear at the very moment of their rendering.” If work is useful, this does not mean that it is productive.

All wealth is created by labor, but the products of labor are created not for oneself, but for exchange (“every person lives by exchange or becomes, to a certain extent, a merchant”). The meaning of a commodity society is that products are produced as goods for exchange. It is not simply that the exchange of goods for goods is equivalent to the labor expended. The result of the exchange is mutually beneficial.

ABOUTseparationlaborAndexchange

People are bound by the division of labor. It makes the exchange profitable for its participants, and the market, commodity society - effective. By buying someone else's labor, his buyer saves his own labor.

According to Smith, the division of labor plays the most important role in increasing the productive power of labor and the growth of national wealth. The deeper the division of labor, the more intense the exchange.

“Give me what I need and you will get what you need.” “It is in this way that we obtain from each other a much larger part of the services that we need” - these provisions of Smith are often quoted by commentators on his work.

"Invisiblehand"marketstrength

One of the leading ideas of The Wealth of Nations is about the “invisible hand”. A market economy is not controlled from a single center and is not subject to one general plan. Nevertheless, it functions according to certain rules and follows a certain order.

The paradox or essence of the market mechanism is that private interest and the desire for one’s own benefit benefits society and ensures the achievement of the common good. In a market economy (in a market mechanism), there is an “invisible hand” of market forces, market mechanisms, which presupposes minimal government intervention and market self-regulation based on free prices that develop depending on supply and demand under the influence of competition.

TwoapproachToeducationcost

Considering the problem of pricing and the essence of price, Smith put forward two propositions.

The first says: the price of a product is determined by the labor expended on it. This provision, in his opinion, is applicable in “primitive societies”. And Smith puts forward the second, according to which value, and therefore price, is made up of labor costs, profit, interest on capital, land rent, i.e. determined by production costs. The essence of these provisions is reflected in Figure 1: the first provision is in the form of a solid arrow with the inscription “Labor”, and the second is expressed using dotted arrows with the inscriptions “Capital” and “Land”.

Principleeconomicfreedom

Smith believed that the market must be protected from external interference. The freedom of economic activity of individuals should not be hindered, nor should it be strictly regulated. Smith opposes unnecessary restrictions on the part of the state; he is for free trade, including foreign trade, for the policy of free trade, and against protectionism.

Rolestates,principlestaxation

Without completely rejecting participation in economic life and control by the state, Smith assigns it the role of a “night watchman”, and not a regulator and controller of economic processes.

Smith identifies three functions that the state is called upon to perform: the administration of justice, the defense of the country, and the organization and maintenance of public institutions.

He also argues that the payment of taxes should not be imposed on one class, as proposed by the physiocrats, but on everyone equally - on labor, on capital and on land.

Smith justifies the principle of proportional division of the tax burden - according to the level of property wealth of taxpayers.

It is believed that Smith's three postulates (analysis of the "economic man", the "invisible hand" of the market, wealth as an objective function and an object of economic relations) still determine the vector of economic science. They form Smith's paradigm.

2.3 David Ricardo: “Principles of Political Economy”

David Ricardo (1772-1823) sought to overcome the inconsistency of individual provisions, more clearly substantiate other provisions, and more fully develop third ones.

Ricardo actually continued the formation of the fundamental principles of the classical school of political economy and, together with Smith, is considered its founder.

Ricardo's main work is “Principles of Political Economy and Taxation” (1817). Ricardo showed that he, like A. Smith, is primarily interested in inevitable economic “laws”, the knowledge of which will make it possible to control the distribution of income created in the sphere of material production.

Theorycost-positionRicardo

Rejecting Smith's dual assessment of this category, he categorically insists that only one factor, “labor,” underlies value. According to his formulation, “the value of a commodity, or the quantity of any other commodity for which it is exchanged, depends on the relative quantity of labor which is necessary for its production, and not on the greater or lesser remuneration which is paid for that labor.”

Theorymoney

D. Ricardo's positions on the theory of money were based on provisions characteristic of the form of the gold coin standard, according to which the amount of gold in the coin minted for circulation, specified by law, was subject to free and guaranteed exchange of paper money. Taking this into account, the author of “Principles” wrote that “neither gold nor any other commodity can always serve as a perfect measure of value for all things.” In addition, D. Ricardo was a supporter of the quantity theory of money, linking the change in their value as goods with their (money) quantity in circulation. He also believed that “money serves as the universal medium of exchange among all civilized countries and is distributed among them in proportions which vary with every improvement in commerce and machinery, with every increase in the difficulty of obtaining food and other necessaries of life for a growing population.” Finally, in his opinion, money as a commodity, when its value decreases, necessitates an increase in wages, which in turn “...is invariably accompanied by an increase in the price of goods.”

Theoryincome

D. Ricardo's theory of income significantly enriched classical political economy in terms of characterizing the essence of rent, profit and wages.

Ricardo believed that rent is the result not of the “generosity” of nature, but of its “poverty”, the lack of rich and fertile plots of land. The source of rent lies in the fact that land is the property of its owners. If air and water “could be turned into property” and were available in limited quantities, “then they, like land, would provide rent,”

Justifying the process of rent formation, Ricardo refers to the growing demand for agricultural products associated with an increase in population) and the process of involving more and more new lands in agricultural circulation.

Rent does not exist only in the transition from better land to worse. The prerequisites and conditions for its existence are differences in the quality, fertility, location of lands, and the degree of their cultivation. Rent can also occur in cases where land is occupied and requires increasing amounts of labor and capital. Rent is always paid for the use of land only because the quantity of land is not unlimited, and its quality is not the same.

Ricardo's theory of rent had practical significance. The provisions and conclusions substantiated by the English classic were directed against the establishment of high duties on bread.

Ricardo's theory of rent helps to understand his interpretation of the relationships and trends of basic incomes: wages, profits, rent.

At the beginning of his work, in the chapter “On Value,” Ricardo argued with Smith, who believed that an increase in wages leads to a change in the value and price of manufactured products. The value of a product, Ricardo said, does not depend on the amount of remuneration for labor, but on the amount of labor required to produce the product; it is determined by the amount of labor embodied in it.

Considering the relationship between the size of profit and workers' earnings, Ricardo comes to the conclusion that an increase in nominal wages leads to a decrease in profits, because wages and profits are antagonistic and are in inverse relation to each other. “Raising wages does not raise the prices of goods, but invariably lowers profits.” “Whatever increases wages necessarily decreases profits.”

According to Ricardo, the main trend characterizing the dynamics of income is as follows: with the development of society, real wages remain unchanged, rent grows, and the level of profit falls.

Theoryreproduction

Ricardo recognized “Say’s law of markets,” i.e., the dogma of a crisis-free and equilibrium state of the economy with full employment. In particular, as if in recognition of “Say’s law,” he wrote: “Products are always bought for products or services; money serves only as the measure by which this exchange is accomplished. A commodity may be overproduced, and the market will be so crowded that the capital spent on that commodity will not even be recovered. But this cannot happen to all goods at the same time.”

Theory"comparativecosts"

Ricardo proposed the theory of “comparative costs” (comparative advantages), which became the theoretical basis for the policy of “free trade” (free trade) and in modern versions is used to justify and develop the so-called “open economy” policy.

The general meaning of this concept is that if the governments of different countries do not impose any restrictions on foreign trade with each other, the economy of each country begins to gradually specialize in the production of those goods that require less labor time to produce. Free trade allows countries to consume no less quantity of goods than before specialization, minimizing the expenditure of labor time required to create a given volume of goods. As a follower of Smith and Malthus, Ricardo made a significant contribution to the development and clarification of various specific problems of economic theory.

2.4 Jean Baptiste Say: “Treatise on Political Economy”

J.B. Say (1767-1832) was the largest representative of the classical school in France, a merchant and entrepreneur, scientist and professor of industrial economics - known as a popularizer of the works of the founders of the classical school, the creator of his own, subjective concept of value (cost). The main work of Zh.B. Say - “A Treatise of Political Economy, or a Simple Statement of the Mode in which Wealth is Formed, Distributed, and Consumed” (1803).

His concepts - to a greater extent than the concepts of other classics - led to the conclusion of the stability and consistency of the capitalist economy, for which he received the most vehement criticism from representatives of many heretical trends in economic science - from Marxists to Keynesians.

Whatissourcevalues?

One of the starting points is Say’s position on the source of value (cost) of goods and services. Unlike A. Smith, who ultimately reduced the source of income to labor (according to the labor theory of value), Say puts utility rather than labor costs at the forefront: “utility imparts value to objects.”

According to Say's concept, the criterion of productivity is utility. Therefore, the labor of artisans and the labor of farmers, the labor of teachers and the labor of doctors should be considered productive.

It is not the material form of the product that is important, but the result of the activity. As a result of production activities, the service does not necessarily have to take the form of a tangible product.

Theoryproductionfactors

The theory of production factors is based on Say's position on the determining role of utility in the formation of the value of goods and the multiplication of wealth.

J. B. Say was the first of the classics to clearly and unambiguously formulate the idea that the value of a product is equal to the sum of wages, profit and rent, i.e. the amount of income of the owners of production factors used in the manufacture of a given product. At the same time, according to Zh.B. Say, each factor of production participates in the production process, providing its service, and therefore contributes to the creation of value of goods. The amount of such contribution is determined in the market for a particular product. The amount of wages characterizes the contribution of labor, the amount of interest - the contribution of capital, the amount of land rent - the contribution of land. He reduces entrepreneurial profit to the wages of highly skilled labor associated with the organization of production activities, that is, the effective combination of other factors of production. The French economist attached special importance to this type of labor - the work of an entrepreneur. It is entrepreneurs who provide the supply of finished goods and create demand for factors of production, thereby providing employment to the labor force. Wealth distribution is also carried out through them.

LawmarketsSeya

As part of his theory of sales markets, Say formulated a law that was later named after him. According to Say's theory of sales markets, “markets for products are created by production itself,” i.e. supply creates demand. These are two equivalent formulations of Say's law.

This law, in turn, leads to the following consequences:

General overproduction is impossible;

What is beneficial for an individual business entity is beneficial for the economy as a whole;

Imports are beneficial to the economy because they are paid for by its products;

Those forces of society that consume but do not produce ruin the economy.

Say's theory of sales markets led to the idea of internal stability and sustainability of the capitalist economy. Unemployment and declines in production should - on its basis - be interpreted as temporary phenomena that have no long-term significance. This view of the macroeconomic stability of a market economy was refuted only in the 1930s.

Conclusion

The classical school developed in the second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. Economists of the classical school, who replaced the mercantilists, made a significant contribution to the formation of the foundations of economic science.

The classical school made the sphere of production, not circulation, its main object of study; revealed the importance of labor as the basis and measure of the value of all goods, as a source of wealth for society; proved that the economy should be regulated by the market and has its own laws that are objective, i.e. cannot be abolished by kings or governments; identified sources of income for all segments of society.

New concepts, provisions, conclusions are to one degree or another based on the works and developments of predecessors, on the terminology developed by them, systematize and organize the previously accumulated theoretical wealth.

The classical school laid a strong foundation for economic theory, which opened the way to further improvement, deepening and development.

Merits of the classical school:

1. She made the sphere of production, not circulation, the main object of study.

2. Revealed the importance of labor as the basis and measure of the value of all goods, as a source of society’s wealth.

3. Proved that the economy should be regulated by the market and has its own laws, which are objective, i.e. cannot be abolished by either kings or governments.

4. Identified the sources of income of all layers of society: entrepreneurs, workers, landowners, bankers, traders.

Mainideasclassicalpoliticalsavingsare:

A person is considered only as an “economic man”, who has only one desire - the desire for his own benefit, to improve his situation. Morality, culture, customs, etc. are not taken into account.

All parties participating in an economic transaction are free and equal before the law, both in the sense of foresight and foresight.

Every economic entity fully aware of prices, profits, wages and rents in any market as in this moment, and in the future.

The market provides complete mobility of resources: labor and capital can instantly move to the right place.

The wage elasticity of the number of workers is not less than one. In other words, any increase in wages leads to an increase in the size of the labor force, and any decrease in wages leads to a decrease in the size of the labor force.

The sole goal of a capitalist is to maximize profit on capital.

In the labor market, there is absolute flexibility of monetary wages (its value is determined only by the relationship between supply and demand in the labor market).

The main factor in increasing wealth is capital accumulation. Competition must be perfect and the economy free from excessive government intervention. In this case, the “invisible hand” of the market will ensure the optimal allocation of resources.

Bibliography

1. Amosova V.V., Gukasyan G.M., Makhovikova G.A. Economic theory. St. Petersburg: Peter, 2002. 480.: ill. (Series “Textbooks for Universities”).

2. Bartenev S.A. History of Economic Thought. M.: Yurist, 2002.456 p.

3. Bartenev S.A., Economic theories and schools, M., 1996.

4. Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. M.: "Delo Ltd", 1994.

5. Voitov A.G. History of Economic Thought. Short course: Tutorial. 2nd ed. M.: Publishing House "Dashkov and Co", 2001. 104 p.

6. Galbraith J.K. Economic theories and goals of society. M.: Progress, 1979.

7. Dadalko V.A. World economy: Textbook. allowance. M.: “Urajay”, “Interpressservice”, 2001. 592 p.

8. Jean-Marie Albertini, Ahmed Silem. "Understand economic theories." A small directory of large currents, translation from French, M., 1996.

9. Zhid Sh., Rist Sh. History of economic teachings. M.: Economics, 1995.

10. Kondratyev N.D. Favorite op. M.: Economics, 1993.

12. Negeshi T. History of economic theory. M.: Aspect - press, 1995.

13. Yadgarov Y.S. History of Economic Thought. M., 2000.

Posted on Allbest.ru

Guseinov R.M., Gorbacheva Yu.V. History of Economic Thought

23.57 MB
added 11/26/2009

Recommended by the Ministry of Education Russian Federation as a textbook for students of higher educational institutions studying economics and technical specialties. The textbook outlines the history of world economic thought from the teachings of mercantilists and physiocrats to modern economic theories. Created for...

As the foundations of market economic relations continued to form in the developed countries of the world, it became increasingly obvious that government intervention in economic activity is not a panacea for overcoming obstacles in increasing national wealth and achieving consistency in the relationships of economic entities both domestically and internationally. foreign markets. Therefore, as P. Samuelson noted, the displacement of “pre-industrial conditions” by the system of “free private enterprise”, contributing to the disintegration of mercantilism, simultaneously became the starting point for the onset of conditions "complete laissez faire."

The last phrase means the requirement of complete non-interference of the state in the economy, business life, or, in other words, - economic liberalism. Moreover, from the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th centuries. this idea has become a kind of motto for market liberal economic policy. And it was from this time that a new theoretical school of economic thought arose, which would later be called classical political economy.

The “Classical School” led a decisive struggle against the protectionist ideology of the mercantilists, turning to the latest methodological achievements of science of that era and developing truly fundamental theoretical research. Its representatives contrasted the empiricism of the mercantilist system with professionalism, which, according to the same P. Samuelson, did not allow “advisers to the king” to convince their monarchs that increasing the country’s wealth was associated with establishing state control over the economy, including curbing imports and encouraging exports and a thousand other “detailed orders”.

The “classics,” in contrast to the mercantilists, essentially re-formulated both the subject and the method of studying economic theory. Thus, the increased degree of manufacturing of the economy (and then its industrialization) led to the promotion of entrepreneurs engaged in industrial production to the fore, pushing capital involved in trade into the background, money circulation and lending operations. For this reason as a subject for studying "classics" They preferred mainly the sphere of production.

As for method of study and economic analysis, then its novelty in the “classical school” is associated, as already mentioned, with introduction of the latest methodological techniques, which provided fairly deep analytical results, a lesser degree of empiricalness and descriptive, i.e. superficial, understanding of economic (business) life. This is also evidenced by the statements of L. Mises and M. Blaug - the greatest authorities of our time in the field of methodology of economic science.

The first of them, in particular, believes that “many epigones of classical economists saw the task of economic science in the study not of actually occurring events, but only of those forces that in some, not entirely understandable way, predetermined the emergence of real phenomena.” According to the second, “classical economists emphasized that the conclusions of economic science are ultimately based on postulates drawn equally from the observed “laws of production” and subjective introspection (self-observation - Ya.Ya.).”

Thus, it can be argued that the replacement of mercantilism by classical political economy was the accomplishment of another historical metamorphosis in relation to the name and purpose of economic science. As is known, during the time of ancient Greek philosophers the term "saving" or "economy" was perceived as an almost literal translation of the words “oikos” (household) and “nomos” (rule, law) and had a semantic meaning processes of housekeeping, family or personal management. During the period of the mercantilist system, economic science, which received the name “political economy” thanks to D. Montchretien, was already perceived as the science of government or the economy of nation states ruled by monarchs. Finally, during the period of the “classical school,” political economy acquired the features of a truly scientific discipline that studies the problems of the economy of free competition.

By the way, K. Marx, whose name is associated with the introduction of the term “classical political economy” into scientific circulation, proceeded primarily from the fact that the “classics” in the works of their best, as he believed, authors A. Smith and D. Ricardo, were not at all allowed neither apologetics nor skimming the surface of economic phenomena. But, in his opinion, the “classical school,” with its characteristic class orientation, “studied the production relations of bourgeois society.” This position, it seems, was not disputed by N. Kondratiev, who believed that in the teachings of the “classics” it was about analyzing the conditions of free economic activity"only the capitalist system."

General features of classical political economy

Continuing the general description of the almost two-hundred-year history of classical political economy, it is necessary to highlight its common features, approaches and trends and give them an appropriate assessment. They can be reduced to the following generalization.

Firstly, the rejection of protectionism in the economic policy of the state and the predominant analysis of problems in the sphere of production in isolation from the sphere of circulation, the development and application of progressive methodological research techniques, including cause-and-effect (causal), deductive and inductive, logical abstraction. In particular, reference to observable “laws of production” removed any doubt that predictions obtained by logical abstraction and deduction should be subjected to experimental verification. As a result, the opposition of the spheres of production and circulation, characteristic of the classics, became the reason for underestimating the natural relationship of economic entities in these spheres, the reverse influence on the sphere of production of monetary, credit and financial factors and other elements of the sphere of circulation.

Moreover, the classics when solving practical problems answers to the main questions were given by posing these questions, as N. Kondratiev put it, "estimated". For this reason, he believes, “answers were obtained that have the nature of evaluative maxims or rules, namely: a system based on freedom of economic activity is the most perfect, free trade is most conducive to the prosperity of the nation, etc.” This circumstance is also did not contribute to the objectivity and consistency of economic analysis and theoretical generalization"classical school" of political economy.

Secondly, relying on causal analysis, calculations of average and total values of economic indicators, the classics (unlike mercantilists) tried to identify the mechanism of formation of the cost of goods and fluctuations in the price level on the market not in connection with the “natural nature” of money and its quantity in the country , but in connection with production costs or, according to another interpretation, the amount of labor expended.

Undoubtedly, since the times of classical political economy in the past there has been no other economic problem, and N. Kondratiev also pointed out this, which would attract “such close attention of economists, the discussion of which would cause so much mental tension, logical tricks and polemical passions, as the problem of value . And at the same time, it seems difficult to identify another problem, the main directions in the solution of which would remain as irreconcilable as in the case of the problem of value” 5 . However cost principle of determining the price level

Thirdly, the category “cost” was recognized by the authors of the classical school as the only initial category of economic analysis, from which, as in a family tree diagram, other inherently derivative categories bud off (grow). Analyzing the problem of value, the classics, according to N. Kondratiev, showed that “this problem includes a number of, albeit related, but deeply different issues. The main ones are the following: 1. What is value as a phenomenon and what are its types (qualitative problem)? 2. What are the grounds, sources or reasons for the existence of value? 3. Is value a quantity and, if so, what kind, and how is its magnitude determined (quantitative problem)? 4. What serves as a measure of value? 5. What function does the category of value perform in the system of theoretical economy? In addition, this kind of simplification of analysis and systematization led the classical school to the fact that economic research itself seemed to imitate mechanical adherence to the laws of physics, i.e. searching for purely internal reasons for economic well-being in society without taking into account psychological, moral, legal and other factors of the social environment.

These shortcomings, referring to M. Blaug, are partly explained by the impossibility of conducting a fully controlled experiment in the social sciences, as a result of which “economists, in order to discard any theory, need much more facts than, say, physicists” 9 . M. Blaug himself, however, clarifies: “If the conclusions from the theorems of economic theory were unambiguously verifiable, no one would ever hear about the unrealistic premises. But the theorems of economic theory cannot be unambiguously verified, since all predictions here are probabilistic in nature.”

Fourth, exploring the problems of economic growth and improving the well-being of the people, the classics not only proceeded (again, unlike the mercantilists) from the principle of achieving an active trade balance (positive balance), but tried to substantiate the dynamism and balance of the country's economy. However, as is known, they "made do" without serious mathematical analysis, the use of methods of mathematical modeling of economic problems, allowing one to select the best (alternative) option from a certain number of states of the economic situation. Moreover, the classical school considered achieving equilibrium in the economy to be automatically possible, sharing the “law of markets” by J.B. Seya.

Finally, fifthly, money, which has long been traditionally considered an artificial invention of people, during the period of classical political economy was recognized as a product spontaneously released in the commodity world, which cannot be “cancelled” by any agreements between people. Among the classics, the only one who demanded the abolition of money was P. Boisguillebert. At the same time, many authors of the classical school until the middle of the 19th century. did not attach due importance to the various functions of money, highlighting mainly one - the function of a medium of exchange, i.e. treating a monetary commodity as a thing, as a technical means convenient for exchange. The underestimation of other functions of money was due to the aforementioned misunderstanding of the reverse influence of monetary factors on the sphere of production.

The main stages of development of the classical school

In the development of classical political economy, with a certain convention, four stages can be distinguished.

First stage. Its initial stage occurred at the end of the 17th - beginning of the 18th century, when in England, thanks to the work of W. Peggy, and in France, with the advent of the works of P. Boisguillebert, signs of an emerging alternative to mercantilism began to form a new teaching, which would later be called classical political economy. These authors sharply condemned the protectionist system that restrained free enterprise. In their works, the first attempts were made at costly interpretations of the cost of goods and services (by taking into account the amount of working time and labor spent in the production process). They emphasized the priority importance of liberal economic principles in the creation of national (non-monetary) wealth in the sphere of material production.

The next stage of this stage is associated with the period of the middle and beginning of the second half of the 18th century, when, with the advent of the so-called physiocratism - a specific movement within the framework of the classical school - the mercantile system was subjected to deeper and more reasoned criticism. The physiocrats (especially F. Quesnay and A. Turgot) significantly advanced economic science, identifying a new interpretation of a number of micro- and macroeconomic categories, although their attention was almost entirely focused on the problems of agricultural production to the detriment of other spheres of the economy and especially the sphere of circulation.

So, at the first stage, not a single representative of classical political economy, not being a professional economist, was able to achieve an in-depth study of the theoretical problems of the effective development of both industrial production and farming.

Second phase. The time period of this period of development of the “classical school” is entirely associated with the name and work of the great economist Adam Smith, whose brilliant work “The Wealth of Nations” (1776) became the special and most significant achievement of economic science throughout the last third of the 18th century.

His “economic man” and the “invisible hand” of providence were able to convince more than one generation of economists of the natural order and inevitability of the spontaneous action of objective laws, regardless of the will and consciousness of people. Largely thanks to him until the 30s. XX century both the “classics” and then the “neoclassicists” believed in the irrefutability of the proposition “laissez faire» - complete non-interference of government regulations in free competition.

The laws of the division of labor and the growth of its productivity discovered by A. Smith (based on the analysis of the pin manufactory) are also considered classic. Modern concepts of a product and its properties, money, wages, profit, capital, productive labor, etc. are also largely based on his theoretical research.

Third stage. The chronological framework of this stage covers almost the entire first half of the 19th century, during which in the developed countries of the world (primarily in England and France) a transition took place from manufacturing production to plants and factories, i.e. to machine, or, as they say, industrial production, marking the completion of the industrial revolution. In this period greatest contribution The British D. Ricardo, T. Malthus and N. Senior, the French J.B., who called themselves students and followers of A. Smith, contributed to the treasury of the “classical school”. Say, F. Bastiat, etc. And although all these authors, following their idol, considered the theory of value to be the main thing in economic science and, like him, adhered to the cost concept (according to which the origin of the cost of goods and services was seen either in the amount of money spent labor, or in production costs), nevertheless, each of them left a rather noticeable mark in the history of economic thought and the formation of liberal market relations.

For example, he was the author of one of the most odious concepts in the “classical school,” called the “law of markets” or simply “Say’s law.” This “law” was shared for more than 100 years first by the “classics” and then by the “neoclassics” because the basis of the problem of balance between aggregate demand and aggregate supply, which ensures, in conditions of fluctuations in market conditions, one or another level of realization of the social product, and Zh.B. Say and his associates put forward, in essence, the following Smithian proposition: with flexible wages and moving prices, the interest rate will balance supply and demand, saving and investment at full employment.

Another researcher, D. Ricardo, who polemicized with L. Smith more than any of his contemporaries and at the same time completely shared the latter’s views on the nature of the origin of the income of the “main classes of society”, for the first time revealed the natural under conditions of free competition, the rate of profit tends to fall, developed a complete theory about the forms of land rent. He is also responsible for one of the best justifications for that time for the pattern of changes in the value of money as goods depending on their quantity in circulation.

In the works of T. Malthus, in development of A. Smith’s imperfect concept of the mechanism of social reproduction (according to Marx, “Smith’s dogma”), he put forward (contrary to the then dominant point of view about the participation of “classes” in economic life) an original theoretical position about "third parties" in accordance with which the mandatory participation in the creation and distribution of the total social product of not only the “productive”, but also the “unproductive” layers of society is justified. In addition, this scientist belongs to the idea that has not lost its relevance in our time about the influence of the number and rate of population growth on the well-being of society - the very idea that was the basis for him the first theory of population in the history of economic thought.

Fourth stage. At this final stage in the second half of the 19th century. dominated by the works of J.S. Mill and K. Marx, who comprehensively summarized the best achievements of the “classical school.” As is known, during this period the formation of a new, more progressive direction of economic thought, which later received the name “neoclassical economic theory,” had already begun. However, the popularity of the theoretical views of the “classics” remained very impressive. The reason for this was, to a large extent, that the last leaders of classical political economy, being strictly committed to the position of the efficiency of pricing in conditions of competition and, condemning class bias and vulgar apologetics in economic thought, nevertheless, in the words of P. Samuelson, sympathized with the working class and were converted "towards socialism and reforms."

In conclusion, it should be noted that in Russia, despite some progress in recent years in terms of eliminating the “literary famine” through the publication of the works of classical economists, the results achieved, alas, do not cause optimism. The fact is that published in 1991 and 1993. With a circulation of 10 thousand copies, the two-volume “Anthology of Economic Classics” is essentially the only help for Russian economists in the “classical political economy” section at the present time. Only one work of the classics is included in its entirety in “Lithology” - the book “Treatise on Taxes and Fees” (the last edition was in 1940 with a circulation of 10 thousand copies). And Adam Smith’s famous “Wealth of Nations” is presented only in the first two books of the great scientist’s Pentateuch (the last edition was published in 1962 with a circulation of 3 thousand copies). With significant abbreviations (only six chapters), the two-volume work also includes the main work of D. Ricardo (the last edition was in 1955). Another bibliographic rarity - “An Essay on the Law of Population” by T. Malthus (last published in Russia in 1868) - although included in the “Anthology”, as is known, this is the first and not the main development of this scientist. At the same time, the works of such authors of classical political economy as J.B. are still published for the last time in a font with the letter “yat”. Say (M., 1896), F. Bastiat (M. 1896) and G. Carey (St. Petersburg, 1869).

The main representatives of classical political economy. Economic classical school Definition of classical political economy

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Similar documents

Guseinov R.M., Gorbacheva Yu.V. History of Economic Thought

General features of classical political economy

The main stages of development of the classical school