Before studying classical political economy in Russia, you should pay attention to the fact that all the theorists of classical political economy discussed above were, with the exception of Marx, British and French. This was due to the leading position of England and France during this period of time in the field of economic, political and cultural development. It was left to other European countries and the United States to interpret the theories coming from England and France in accordance with their local socio-economic conditions. Russia was among them. Nevertheless, some original ideas in the economic science of that time were also expressed by Russian scientists.

Classical political economy began to penetrate into Russia in the second half of the 18th century. Its official recognition and teaching at universities began, as in Western Europe, in the 19th century. At the same time, Russia lagged behind the West in its economic and political development. At the end of the 18th - beginning of the 19th centuries. in England and in the first half of the 19th century. in France already

The industrial revolution was taking place, and manual production dominated in Russia. In England, the bourgeois revolution with corresponding social reforms occurred in the middle of the 17th century, in France - at the end of the 18th century, in Russia and in the first half of the 19th century. The absolute monarchy stood unshakable, society was divided by class rights and privileges, and a significant part of the population consisted of serfs, practically deprived of all rights.

Therefore, in the second half of the 18th - first half of the 19th centuries. Russian economic thought had a certain specificity. It developed as if on two planes. Academic, university economics, which had close contact with Western Europe, was in line with the global traditions of classical political economy, which corresponded to industrial capitalism, which was still absent in Russia. The practical line of Russian economic thought used the spirit rather than the content of classical political economy and raised mainly the problems of the period of primitive accumulation of capital, i.e. problems of money circulation, credit, finance, foreign and domestic trade, the economic role of the state, as well as problems of economic rights of the nobility, merchants, peasantry and other social strata of Russian society. This chapter will examine the main stages in the development of the theoretical line of classical political economy in Russia.

The first theory of classical political economy that became widespread in Russia was the theory of the physiocrats, and its guide was the Russian Ambassador to France Dmitry Golitsyn (1734-1803). He had an assignment from Catherine II to inform her about the activities of the “princes of science” dear to her, which corresponded to his personal inclinations, and therefore, with the advent of the school of “economists” (physiocrats), Golitsyn began to attend their “Tuesdays” in the house of the Marquis Mirabeau. (Subsequently, in 1796, he published a book about the physiocrats and their teaching, “On the Spirit of Economists.”) In 1765, with the blessing of Catherine II, in St. Petersburg, by analogy with the Parisian club of “economists,” the Free Economic Society was created, which existed until 1917. At the same time, the theoretical side of the teachings of the physiocrats did not attract much attention in Russia. In the initial period of its activity, the Free Economic Society dealt mainly with practical issues of agriculture.

However, at the end of the 1980s. An important discovery was made in the history of economic doctrines. It was believed that F. Quesnay’s “Economic Table”, which served as the first step in the theory of inter-

racial balance, was continued only 100 years later in the theory of social reproduction of K. Marx. But, as it turned out, the “Economic Table” had a significant development in the recently discovered works of Kharkov University professor Joseph Lang (1775(6)-1820). Yesterday's graduate of the University of Freiburg, invited in 1803 to the newly opened Kharkov University, he worked here throughout his short life and in the works of 1807-1815. first developed a three-sector model (but somewhat different from Quesnay’s), then a four-sector model of the national economy. Lang, like Quesnay, used the concept “class” to designate economic sectors. In his four-sector model, the redistribution of the gross national product was carried out among primary product producers (agriculture and mining), secondary product producers (manufacturing), and the commercial and service classes. At the same time, he used linear equations and numerical examples from the national economic turnover of the then Russia. Unfortunately, Lang's work was not noticed by his contemporaries and did not have an impact on the development of economic science.

The spread of A. Smith's theory in Russia had a much larger scale compared to the theory of the physiocrats. There were also personal contacts with Smith. In 1761, two students of Moscow University, Ivan Tretyakov (1735-1776) and Semyon Desnitsky (1740-1789), were sent to study at the University of Glasgow, where Smith, who had not yet written The Wealth of Nations, was a professor of moral philosophy ”, but already considered economic problems in his lectures. In 1767, Desnitsky and Tretyakov returned to their homeland and began teaching at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. In addition to legal works, they also wrote on general social problems, and Tretyakov had a small economic work, “Discourses on the Causes of the Abundance and Slow Enrichment of States, Both Among Ancient and Modern Nations” (1772), the title of which is very close to the title of Smith’s main book, released four years later. The economic views of Tretyakov and Desnitsky were close to the early views of Smith, but unlike him, they, not being supporters of “economic liberalism,” advocated protectionism in foreign trade and stimulation of domestic production by the state, and also paid more attention to issues of money circulation and credit and finance. In addition, Desnitsky in 1781 put forward the concept of social development, within the framework of which he gave a diagram of history

economy, consisting of four stages: hunting, pastoral, agricultural and commercial. The latter implied a capitalist economy. This scheme anticipated similar schemes of the historical school that appeared in Germany from the middle of the 19th century.

At the beginning of the 19th century. Smith's ideas have already become widespread in Russia, especially since in 1802-1806. Smith's "Wealth of Nations" was translated into Russian at public expense. This was due to the fact that from the beginning of the 19th century. political economy became part of the university curriculum, and in Russia five new universities were opened in addition to Moscow. At first, the new discipline was taught mainly by foreign professors. Among them are Christian Schlözer, a professor at Moscow University and the author of the first political economy textbook translated into Russian; Ludwig Jacob, a professor at Kharkov University, who wrote works on the Russian economy, and Mikhail Balugyansky, a Ukrainian from Austria-Hungary, the first rector of St. Petersburg University and assistant to the famous Russian reformer M. Speransky. Since these were mainly German teachers, they taught classical political economy with a flavor of cameralism (the discipline of public administration taught in the 18th century in German universities). In other words, they were not complete supporters of the concept of "economic liberalism."

For the first twenty years, Russian political economy was taught under the direct influence of Smith's theory, but gradually Smith moved to a certain height as a symbol of the general direction, and in specific issues Russian economists increasingly relied on the works of Say, Malthus, to a lesser extent on Ricardo, as well as on the works of less major Western economists. Since the 20s XIX century Sei finally became the main authority, and remained in this capacity until the early 40s.

In Russia at that time, the most prominent economist and the first Russian academician in political economy was Heinrich Storch (1776-1835). He was born in Riga, studied in Germany and then taught at the First Cadet Corps in St. Petersburg and served in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Storch's main work, A Course in Political Economy, which brought him European fame, was published in 1815 in French. Regarding this work, Storch had a conflict with Say, who accused Storch of plagiarism. However, other European scientists had a different opinion. So, Ricard’s closest friend and follower

Before McCulloch wrote: “This work has brought great fame to its author... In addition to a clear and skillful presentation of the most important principles... of the production of wealth... Storch's work has many excellent findings on subjects that have attracted little attention from English and French economists. .. Storch’s works can, in all fairness, be placed at the head of all works on political economy brought from the continent to England.” Storch considered his most important contribution to economics to be the theory of civilization, which, in his opinion, complemented Smith's theory of wealth. It followed from his theory of value, partly close to Say's theory. At the same time, when determining value, Say placed the main emphasis on factors of production, while Storch focused on the utility of a thing. Based on the priority of utility rather than materiality, Storch extends the concept of wealth and capital to intangible goods, to which he included the fruits of various services, including those providing a person with health, knowledge, artistic taste, leisure, security, etc. From here follows an expanded interpretation of productive labor, which he takes beyond the framework of material production. Storch included in the unproductive class only owners who received interest or rent for their property, and pensioners. Storch called the combination of the theory of (material) wealth and the theory of (immaterial) civilization the theory of national welfare. Storch's ideas, in particular the idea of ​​intangible, so-called human capital, received a rebirth in the 20th century.

In the mid-40s. XIX century In Russia, the works of critics of capitalism (Sismondi and utopian socialists) began to spread. And just like in the West, a certain polarization of positions is taking place in the Russian political economy. In particular, in 1847, the first complete textbook of political economy written in Russian was published in Russia - a three-volume book by Alexander Butovsky (1817-1890), who served in the Ministry of Finance. Butovsky, whose work became the main textbook in Russian universities in the next decade, was close to Say’s school. Butovsky’s critic was Vladimir Milyutin (1826-1855), then a student and later a professor at Moscow University. In a number of positions, he was close to Sismondi with his desire to achieve the well-being of all subjects of the capitalist economy, but did not share the idealization of small-scale production.

The representative of the socialist trend in Russian classical political economy was Nikolai Chernyshevsky

(1828-1889). He was editor of the Sovremennik magazine during the period of revolutionary upsurge of 1859-1861. became one of its ideologists, in 1862 he was arrested and exiled to Siberia, from where he returned only before his death in 1889. All of Chernyshevsky’s economic works were written in 1857-1862. Among them, two works should be highlighted: “Essays from Political Economy (according to Mill)” and “Capital and Labor”. In the field of theory, he partly relied on Mill, but mostly he was close to Owen and dreamed of creating his own “political economy of working people.” By working people, Chernyshevsky understood both workers and peasants and believed that Russia had its own special path to socialism - through the peasant community and workers' artel, bypassing capitalism.

Chernyshevsky's contemporaries were bourgeois representatives of classical political economy - I. Gorlov, I. Vernadsky, V. Bezobrazov and others. In 1859-1862. Petersburg University professor Ivan Gorlov (1814-1890) published a two-volume textbook on political economy, which replaced Butovsky’s textbook. Moscow University professor Ivan Vernadsky (1821-1884) published the first fundamental study in Russia on the history of economic doctrines, “Essay on the History of Political Economy” (1858). These scientists advocated the development of industrial capitalism and the farmer way of agricultural development in Russia. Their activities coincided with a period of reforms in Russia, the main of which - the abolition of serfdom in 1861 - significantly stimulated the development of capitalism in Russia. Since the 60s XIX century Finally, two lines of development of Russian political economy coincided - the sphere of capitalist production became the subject of study of both its theoretical and practical lines. But the paradox was that in world economic science classical political economy had already largely completed its creative development.

In the second half of the 19th century. classical political economy in Russia, as well as throughout the world, formally retained its dominance, was taught at universities, but its creative potential had already dried up. In the 1870-80s. it is gradually being replaced by the ideas of the historical or, as it was also called, the real school (see below). Among Russian representatives of classical political economy of the second half of the 19th century. It is possible, obviously, to single out only the “Kyiv school” (N. Bunge, A. Antonovich, D. Pikhno, etc.), which was primarily engaged in the study of pricing in conditions of changes in supply and demand.

And finally in the 90s. XIX century in Russia, under the influence of the rapid industrial boom and the emergence of capitalism, it receives

mass spread of Marxism. Among the Marxist economists of this time, we should mention, first of all, P. Struve, M. Tugan-Baranovsky, V. Ulyanov (Lenin), S. Bulgakov and others. Russian Marxists during this period conducted theoretical disputes with another group of Russian socialists - the populists about the prospects of capitalism in Russia. The populists (V. Vorontsov, M. Danielson) shared, in essence, Sismondi’s theory of implementation and argued that the development of capitalism in Russia was hampered. reduction of the market (demand), while Marxists, relying on Marx’s theory of social reproduction, argued that due to the growing specialization of producers, there are no difficulties in selling their products. At the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Marxism in Russia split into critical and orthodox (of the four leading economic theorists mentioned above, only Lenin remained in the position of orthodox Marxism), and at the beginning of the 20th century. Critical Marxists moved to completely different theoretical positions.

After studying this chapter, you will know:

• the reasons that determined the formation of classical political economy in Russia;
• features of the development of the classical school of political economy in Russia;
• the main representatives of domestic classical political economy;
• general features and features of the views of representatives of the classical school.

Basic concepts: "theory of civilization", theory of national welfare, peasant socialism, hypothetical research method (method of conjectural definitions), communal land ownership, economic theory of working people.

General characteristics of classical political economy in Russia

In the 18th century – 60s XIX century Russia, the largest country in the world, possessing enormous natural resources, lagged behind the advanced states of Western Europe in economic development. The main reason was the feudal-serf system that existed at that time. In agriculture, which formed the basis of the Russian economy, the forced labor of serfs was extremely ineffective and did not allow the use of advanced and modern forms and methods of farming. In industry and trade, the preservation of serfdom and class restrictions restrained the initiative and entrepreneurship of the emerging capitalist class and hampered the development of market relations. The class organization of society made it impossible to implement the principle of free competition, which could accelerate the economic development of the country. The state played an important role in the economic condition of the country. The economic policy of the authorities was aimed at maintaining and providing the necessary material and financial resources for the country's foreign policy. Russian Empire at the end of the 18th – beginning of the 19th centuries. waged long wars, which had a generally negative impact on the national economy. This was evidenced, for example, by the constant state budget deficit. At the beginning of the 19th century. State expenditures were almost twice as high as revenues.

Classical political economy, which originated in England, had by that time become widespread in other countries, including Russia. However, its lower level of socio-economic development compared to leading European countries did not allow Russian economists to have a serious influence on the development of this theory. At the same time, some original ideas that became famous left their mark on the history of economic thought.

Classical political economy in Russia developed in two directions:

• – first was represented by university economics, which had strong connections with the academic and educational centers of Western Europe and was formed within the framework of classical political economy;
• – second – socialist branch of classical political economy.

Academic direction of classical political economy

One of the first representatives of classical political economy in Russia was Josef Lang(1776–1820), graduate of the University of Freiburg, invited in 1803 to the newly opened Kharkov University. In his works, he first developed a three-sector model, somewhat different from that of F. Quesnay, and then a four-sector model of the national economy. To designate sectors of the economy, J. Lang, like F. Quesnay, used the concept of “class”. In his model, the redistribution of the gross national product was carried out between producers of the primary product (agriculture and mining), producers of the secondary product (manufacturing industry), and the commercial and service classes. He used linear equations and statistics. But, unfortunately, J. Lang’s works were not noticed by his contemporaries.

The ideas of classical political economy were actively promoted Ivan Tretyakov(1735–1776) and Semyon Desnitsky(1740–1789) – professors at the Faculty of Law of Moscow University. They were educated at the University of Glasgow, where at that time A. Smith taught, who by that time had not yet written “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations,” but was already considering in his lectures economic problems that were later included in his famous work . In general, they shared the economic views of A. Smith, but, unlike him, they were not supporters of “economic liberalism”; they advocated protectionism in foreign trade and government stimulation of domestic production. Scientists paid much attention to issues of money circulation, credit and finance. S. Desnitsky put forward the concept of social development, dividing the entire history of the economy into four stages - hunting, cattle breeding, agricultural and commercial. His periodization anticipated similar schemes of the historical school that appeared in Germany in the middle of the 19th century.

At the beginning of the 19th century. A. Smith's ideas became widespread in Russia. In 1802–1806 his programmatic work was translated into Russian at state expense. At the same time, the course of political economy was included in the curricula of Russian universities. The new academic discipline was taught mainly by foreign professors, for example, at Moscow University Christian Avgustovich Shletser(1774–1831) – author of the first textbook on political economy in 2 parts, “The Initial Foundations of State Economy or the Science of National Wealth” (1805); at Kharkov University Ludwig Jacob, professor who has written works on Russian economics, etc.

The largest representative of this government was Henry (Andrey) Karlovich Storkh(1766–1835). His scientific interests covered the history and economics of the Russian Empire. Among his early works one can highlight " Statistical review of viceroyalties of the Russian Empire" (1795), "Materials for the knowledge of the Russian Empire" (1796–1798), "Chronicle of the reign of the Russian Empress Catherine II" (1798), "Russia during the reign of Alexander I"(1804–1808). But the main work of G. Storch was "Course of Political Economy, or an exposition of the principles that determine the people's well-being"in 6 volumes (1815).

In 1815, this work was translated into French and brought G. Storch European fame. But after its publication, the author had a conflict with J.-B. Say, who accused G. Storch of plagiarism. However, many European scientists had a different opinion. Thus, D. Ricardo’s closest friend and follower J.R. McCulloch wrote: “This work has brought great fame to its author... In addition to a clear and skillful presentation of the most important principles... of the production of wealth... Storch’s work has many excellent findings about subjects that have attracted little attention from English and French economists... Storch’s works can, in all fairness, be placed at the head of all works on political economy brought from the continent to England.”

Subject of political economy. In the preface of his book, G. Storch defined the subject of political economy as a science: “Until now, Political Economy was considered as a science about the wealth of states; I tried to show that it embraces their well-being in general and that the theory of enlightenment also constitutes a significant part of it, closely connected with the essential subject of science, i.e. with the concept of values."

Economic categories. In the first part of the course “The Theory of National Wealth” (volumes 1-4), such fundamental categories of political economy as wealth, value and good are analyzed, and a classification of values ​​is given as “external goods - wealth and internal goods - education”. G. Storch comes to the conclusion that: “Material objects can not only be mastered, but also transferred: therefore, as soon as the opinion of many people recognizes their usefulness, they can have an exchange value, or price; immaterial objects, on the contrary, can be owned, but, with the exception of a very limited number, they cannot be transferred, and therefore they have only direct value and can never become an exchange value; they can neither be bought nor sold, only the labor that produces them can be bought and sold; .... The entire mass of wealth that exists among a people constitutes its national wealth; and the mass of internal goods that it possesses is its education. These two objects constitute the people’s well-being.”

G. Storch extended the concept of wealth and capital to intangible benefits, to which he included various services, including those providing a person with health, knowledge, artistic taste, leisure, security, etc. He broadly interpreted the category of productive labor, which he brought beyond the framework of material production. G. Storch included in the unproductive class only owners who receive interest or rent for their property, and pensioners. The "Course of Political Economy" examines, in particular, the category of land rent, the problem of social production and distribution, etc.

The second part of the “Course of Political Economy” (volumes 5–6) outlines "theory of civilization". G. Storch considered it his most important contribution to economic science, which complemented A. Smith's theory of wealth. The “theory of civilization” followed from his theory of value, close to the theory of J.B. Say. However, if J.B. Say, when determining value, paid main attention to the factors of production, then G. Storch - to the usefulness of a thing, based on the priority of utility rather than materiality.

The scientist called the combined theories of wealth and civilization theory of people's welfare. His ideas, in particular the idea of ​​intangible or so-called human capital, received a rebirth in the 20th century.

Academician L. I. Abalkin, assessing the significance of G. Storch’s work, wrote: “His works were widely known in the West and received high praise. K. Marx analyzed Storch’s views in all volumes of Capital. Much of his theoretical heritage retains its significance today. And this suggests that already at the beginning of the 19th century the Russian school of economic thought was one of the leaders of world economic theory... The intelligence and spirituality of Andrei Shtorkh, his moral qualities and honesty make his life and works so relevant in the world. our days. After all, many of these qualities have been lost today. There are directly opposite forces at work in the country. But without the restoration of spirituality, honesty, decency and intelligence as the highest demands on oneself, on the results of one’s work for the good of society, Russia does not have a bright place. future."

In 1847, the first complete textbook of political economy written in Russian was published in Russia - a three-volume set Alexandra Butovskaya(1817–1890), which became the main textbook in Russian universities in the next decade.

Representatives of classical political economy in Russia were also I. Gorlov, I. Vernadsky and others. In 1859 - 1862. professor at St. Petersburg University Ivan Gorlov(1814–1890) published a two-volume textbook on political economy, which replaced Butovsky’s textbook. Professor at Moscow University Ivan Vernadsky(1821 – 1884) published the first fundamental study in Russia on the history of economic doctrines, “Essay on the History of Political Economy” (1858). These scientists advocated the development of industrial capitalism in the country, and the farmer way of agricultural development. Their activities coincided with the period of reforms in Russia. Since the 60s XIX century the unification of two directions of development of Russian political economy began. Capitalist production has become the subject of study by both theoretical economists and practical economists.

In the second half of the 19th century. classical political economy in Russia, as well as throughout the world, formally still retained its dominance, but its creative potential had already dried up. In the 1870s–1880s. it is gradually being replaced by the ideas of the historical school. Among Russian representatives of classical political economy in the last third of the 19th century. It is possible to single out only the “Kyiv school” represented by N. Bunge, A. Antonovich, D. Pikhno and others, which was mainly engaged in the study of pricing in conditions of changes in supply and demand.

• X. A. Schletser was born in 1774. A graduate of the University of Göttingen. From 1801 he taught at Moscow University, and from 1804 he taught a course in political economy.
• G. K. Storch was born in 1766 in Riga. Graduated from the Universities of Jena and Heidelberg in Germany. At the invitation, he came to Russia, taught history and literature in the first cadet corps in St. Petersburg, and served in the Department of Foreign Affairs. He became the first Russian academician with a degree in political economy and statistics, and from 1830 to 1835 he was vice-president of the Academy of Sciences. Died 1835
• Shtorkh A.K. The course of political economy, or the presentation has begun, that determines the people's well-being // World Economic Thought. Through the prism of centuries: in 5 volumes. M.: Mysl, 2004. T. 1. P. 640.
• Abalkin L. I. Essays on the history of Russian socio-economic thought. M.: Publishing house of TSU named after. G. R. Derzhavina, 2009. pp. 13, 20.

Economic existence, economic phenomena and processes have always attracted the attention of people, especially scientists. Why: The fact is that economic issues concern the life of every person: they regulate the material possibilities of family life that arise in relationships between people, between an individual and the state, between private institutions, between private and public institutions, etc. That is, in everyday life: in transport, in a store, at work, at school, during leisure, while engaged in business activities, each of us acts as a participant in economic relations and, voluntarily or unwittingly, in his activities makes decisions that affect not only our own economic interests, but also the economic interests of the people who surround us, and finally, the interests of society. So, the first problem that faces people is the problem of the optimality of the decisions that they make in the process of their economic activity. What does this optimality depend on? From knowledge of the laws of economic development. Therefore, the desire of people to penetrate into the essence of economic processes was dictated and is dictated by the practical needs of economic life, influencing it in necessary directions, making effective decisions in the process of any economic (economic) activity.

Even in the Ancient World, economic thought achieved significant development. Economic views of Xenophon^2!, Plato^3!, Aristotle^4!,

as well as the thinkers of Ancient Egypt, China and India had a great influence on the development of economic science in subsequent eras. We find many economic observations in the Bible. It gives a certain interpretation of the economic life of the ancient peoples who inhabited Palestine and surrounding lands in the 2nd and 1st millennia BC. As a rule, these interpretations are given in the form of commandments, instructions about human behavior.

But economic views and schools arose a long time ago; economic theory as an independent science arose relatively recently. The impetus for this was the emergence and development of capitalism, the formation of a national market. At the same time, the name of this science appeared: political economy. It comes from a combination of three ancient Greek words “politeia” - social, state system and the already familiar “oikos” and “nomos”, which together mean: the science of the laws of running a social economy.

The name “political economy” was first coined by the Frenchman Antoine Montchretien5! in the “Treatise of Political Economy,” which was published in 1615. Why did Montchretien call his work this way, and not just “economy” or “economics,” as did ancient Greek thinkers or his contemporaries? The fact is that, starting with Xenophon and Aristotle, everyone who used these words (economy, economics) put their original meaning into them - this is home economics, managing a personal household, family. But Montchretien is not writing about such an economy. His thoughts were aimed at the prosperity of the economy as a state, national community. Emphasizing precisely this, he put a political definition in front of the word economy.

However, Montchretien’s main merit is not that he gave the name to the new science, but that in his “Treatise,” specifically devoted to economic problems, he for the first time identified a special subject of research, different from the subject of other social sciences. It is from this moment that two aspects begin to be distinguished in the general concept of “economy”: economics as a system of economic activity and economics as a system of scientific knowledge about economic activity. And in economic science itself, the process of differentiation of knowledge began. On the one hand, theoretical economic sciences are being formed, on the other - applied ones. Now economics is a system of disciplines about economics, the leading of which is political economy, which plays the role of a theoretical foundation and performs a methodological function in relation to all other economic disciplines. See diagram 3.

Scheme System of Economic Sciences

In the process of development of political economy as a science, several stages can be distinguished.

Political economy as a science began to take shape only with the emergence of capitalist society.

building, and therefore the object of its study was not economics in general, but the economics of the capitalist mode of production. And since capitalist relations began to take shape primarily in trade, this was reflected in the theoretical developments of the first economists who studied; this system. In particular, based on purely

superficial assessment of market processes, they: 1) identifying wealth with money, believed that wealth is only what can be realized in money and gold; 2) production was considered only as a prerequisite for creating wealth; 3) circulation (trade) was considered the direct source of wealth, because there goods are transformed into money and profit arises due to the sale of goods at a higher price than they were purchased.

However, not every turnover was considered a source of wealth, but only trade between countries (international), since it is this that increases the amount of money in the country, while domestic trade only transfers money from one hand to another, without bringing profit to the country. Hence the general conclusion: the balance in foreign trade should be active, that is, you need to buy less abroad and sell more. Based on this, labor engaged only in trade, primarily international, was considered productive, since it (as it looked outwardly) most contributed to the accumulation of the country’s wealth.

This first direction of political economic thought, which received the name mercantilism in literature (from the Italian “mercante” - merchant, merchant), began to take shape in the last third of the 15th century, but gained widespread development from the 2nd half of the 16th century. The most famous representatives of mercantilism were the English economists William Stafford (1554-1612) and Thomas Maine (1571-1641), the Italian G. Scaruffi (1519-1584), the Frenchman Antoine Montchretien and the Russian Ivan Pososhkov (1652-1726). .).

The policy of mercantilism (accumulation of money), protectionism^! and state regulation of the economy in the era of the formation of capitalism (15-18 centuries) was dominant in European countries - from Portugal to Muscovy. In particular, starting from the second half of the 17th century, it was widely used by France. The theory of mercantilism was successfully developed by Italian specialists. In Germany, mercantilism is in the form of so-called cameralism^7! was the official economic doctrine in the early 19th century. However, English economists played a leading role in developing the ideas of mercantilism and implementing the policy of mercantilism. This is explained by the fact that England, earlier than other European states, took the path of capitalist development and its bourgeoisie had more experience in establishing a new socio-economic system.

--;t-------- 3 development of capitalism, due to the fact that
classical capital from the sphere of circulation penetrates into the sphere of production

POL1TEKONOM1YA

And production (And the fundamental is fixed there),

the main provisions of mercantilism are beginning to lose relevance: new demands are on the agenda - freedom of trade and entrepreneurship. In political economy, this was reflected in the fact that the concept of mercantilism gave way to the theoretical views of the physiocrats in France and the classical school in England. The second stage in the development of political economy begins.

Physiocrats^ are representatives of one of the areas of classical political economy, which arose in France in the mid-19th century. as a reaction to mercantilism. They, unlike the mercantilists, saw the source of wealth not in the sphere of circulation (trade), but in production. This is their merit. At the same time, the physiocrats limited production only to agriculture. They considered industry an unproductive branch of the economy, and therefore all those employed in this area belonged to the “sterile class”!9!. Outstanding representatives of Physiocratism in France were: Francois Quesnay (1694-1774), Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781), Victor Mirabeau (1715-1789). The theories of the physiocrats were also developed in Italy, Great Britain, Germany, Sweden, Poland and other countries.

Political economy reached the peak of its development at this stage in the works of representatives of the English classical school. These are: William Petty (1623-1687), Adam Smith (1723-1790) and David Ricardo (1772-1823). The main scientific achievements of the classics are the desire to identify deep patterns in social life; placing the production process at the center of the theoretical system, and any production, and not just agricultural production, as with the physiocrats; the beginning of the labor theory of value; identification of the unearned nature of income of entrepreneurs^10^. It is thanks to these bells and whistles that this school received the name classical.

I8". The term "physiocrats" comes from two Greek words: jusiv - nature and

"kratos" - power, strength.

Yeh! Physiocrats were the first to consider bourgeois society as a class society, highlighting

There are three classes: farmers - the only productive class; owners (mostly

land owners); third class - all others, that is, everyone who is employed in others, except

agriculture, economic sectors.

PO) D. Ricardo even discovered a pattern that expresses the relationship between

paid labor (workers' wages) and unpaid labor (profit

entrepreneur), and proved that profits increase or decrease in the same proportion,

in which wages decrease or increase.

Marxism in

With a high degree of maturity, his internal contradictions were revealed. This inevitably gave rise to

political economy new directions in the development of political economy, namely

pragmatic and proletarian political economy (19-20 centuries).

Representatives of pragmatic political economy, firstly, based on the concept of limited factors of production, focused their main role on the issues of using the latter to generate profit and economic growth in the interests of entrepreneurs. Secondly, as ideologists of the bourgeoisie, they considered their main task to be direct defense, every possible embellishment of the bourgeois system, not even stopping at the obvious contradictions of capitalism. But historical experience has proven the important role of social issues in the development of human society, therefore the pragmatists of the 20th century. are forced to increasingly resort to consideration of socio-economic issues in economic theory, although they generally assign them a secondary role.

The difference between representatives of pragmatic political economy and their predecessors is that representatives of classical political economy sought to reveal the true laws of the formation and development of the social system in which they lived (capitalism). Therefore, A. Smith and D. Ricardo derived the desire for profit and capital accumulation from the laws of production. Pragmatists, for the purpose of apologizing capitalist production, limit themselves to a description and superficial classification of the external appearance of economic processes and do not reveal their essence, and the laws of production themselves derive the desire for profit from the economic interests of the bourgeoisie.

Pragmatism, taking into account the interests of the ruling class of the capitalist estate - the bourgeoisie, since the 30s of the 19th century, has become the dominant direction in the development of political economy. Its founders were the English economists Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), James Mill (1773-1836) and the Frenchman Jean Baptiste Say (1766-1832). In 20th century. Among its representatives we see such famous economists as John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), Friedrich Hayek (1899-198) - Great Britain, Wesley Claire Mitchell (1874-1948), Paul Samuelson (b. 1915) - USA.

As a counterweight to pragmatic political economy in the mid-19th century. a proletarian political economy emerges. Its foundations were laid by the ideologists of the working class Karl Marx (1818-1883) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) - Unlike pragmatic political economy, which perpetuates the bourgeois system, proletarian (later it became

be called Marxist), revealing the internal contradictions of capitalism, proves that capitalism, just as naturally as it replaced feudalism, must give way to a new, more progressive social order - socialism. Marxist political economy was developed in the works of VL Lenin (1870-1924), and the practical embodiment of its ideas was found in the construction of the world's first socialist state - the Soviet Union (1922), the reasons for the collapse of which are the subject of research by future economists and political scientists.

The line that separates the named two directions in the modern stage

Political economy is the attitude towards ownership of the means of production. Representatives of pragmatic political economy defend private ownership as the basis of the social order. Marxists believe that the basis that can ensure the highest efficiency in the development of social production is social ownership of the means of production. Historical experience shows that the opposition of these two forms of property, giving rise to quite serious social cataclysms, slows down social progress. Both forms, in their versatility, can contribute to socio-economic development. The only problem is how they are used in relation to specific conditions and the degree of development of the productive forces of society. This, in particular, is the number one problem for modern Ukraine, whose economy is in transition.

It is the problem of combining the positive features of the pragmatic school, which has significant improvements in elucidating the patterns of microeconomic processes, and classical and Marxist political economy with their undoubted achievements in the field of solving social issues and identifying patterns of macroeconomic processes that political economy in the modern new stage of its development. Therefore, these problems will be the focus of our course. See diagram 4.

Institute of Economics and Management (Simferopol)

Department of Economic Theory

Malakhova V.V.

Political Economy

Educational and methodological manual for self-study of the discipline

Simferopol, 2003.

The manual contains educational materials necessary for independent study of the discipline “Political Economy”.

The main elements of the manual are a program summary, brief lecture notes, questions for preparing for seminar classes, practical and test tasks for self-testing students' knowledge, guidelines for preparing essays and term papers, criteria for assessing students' knowledge, a terminological dictionary, and a list of references.

Malakhova V.V. Political economy: Educational manual. – Simferopol, 2003, 204 p.

Reviewers:

Efremov A.V., Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor; Kondrashova G. P., Candidate of Economic Sciences, Associate Professor.

Under the general editorship of Doctor of Economic Sciences, Professor Uzunov V.

Scientific editor, candidate of economic sciences, associate professor Marinina I. D.

Preface

The essence of the economic transformations carried out in Ukraine is to make every person an active participant in the economic life of society. Higher school is designed to form economic thinking in a young specialist based on a deep understanding of phenomena, processes and relationships in the economic system of society, as well as ways and means of solving economic problems.

The main objective of this teaching aid is to assist students in studying political economy.

The main idea of ​​the manual is the comprehensiveness of the course sections, which allows students to orient themselves in using the proposed material during classroom, individual and independent work.

The list of topics presented in the manual and their content correspond to the current regulatory program for the discipline "Political Economy". Each course topic has a structure that is adequate to the main objectives of the manual and is presented in the corresponding blocks:

1. B program annotation the general boundaries of the topic and the logical sequence of presentation of the material are outlined.

The task of program annotation is to orient students within the framework of the subject of study.

2. Basic lecture notes Briefly reveals the content of each of the course topics. During the lecture, students, having a supporting note, can, without being distracted by recording the lecture, concentrate on understanding the material, or can make the necessary additional notes.

3. Staging seminar problems continues the learning cycle

- Questions to prepare for seminar classes;

- Terms and concepts that you need to know on the topic;

Abstract topics.

One part of the tasks is relatively simple and is almost always completed orally, while the other part requires serious thought, and sometimes explanations from the teacher or group discussion. Most assignments are completed in writing.

5. Headings containing laconic descriptions of portraits, quotes, opinions and paradoxical statements of major economists, politicians and philosophers, make you think seriously about the nature and significance of economic relations for every person.

These include: Rep.! - repeat;

Look in the dictionary!- you will have to work with reference literature, write down the meanings of terms and economic concepts, learn to classify them and apply them in practice.

Quote - the title of the section speaks for itself. These are quotes from classical economic works, designed to awaken interest in this, of course, vital science.

This is interesting! - interesting facts from the history of economics and economic thought.

6. The tasks proposed to students in some topics are aimed at mastering and developing skills related to the logic of thinking, practice and technology for calculating indicators, analyzing and synthesizing economic information. Solutions are proposed for typical problems by topic.

7. At the end of studying the topic, students are offeredtests for self-testing knowledge and assessing your readiness for further

After working through the listed blocks, the student must have the necessary knowledge, skills and abilities for their further application.

The appendices located at the end of the manual are intended for a more in-depth study by students of the discipline "Political Economy":

1. Dictionary of basic economic terms.

3. Topics of essays on political economy.

5. Subjects of coursework.

6. Criteria for assessing coursework.

7. Sample tickets for the exam.

8. Criterion for assessing students' knowledge in the exam.

9. List of literature recommended for study.

Educational and methodological support for studying the discipline

TOPIC 1. Subject and method of political economy

Program annotation

The origin and development of political economy. Main directions, schools and currents in political economy. Development of economic thought in Ukraine.

Subject of political economy. Explanation of the subject of political economy by different schools. Economic theory and political economy: problems of communication.

Methods of economic research. General methods of scientific knowledge and their use.

Functions of political economy: methodological, cognitive, practical, planning-prognostic, ideological. Political economy and rationale for economic policy. The place of political economy in the system of economic sciences.

Supporting notes

Political economy is an integral part of economic theory. Economic theory consists of political economy, macroeconomics, microeconomics, and the history of economic doctrines.

Macro- and microeconomics concretize the general theoretical provisions of political economy. Macroeconomics at the country level, microeconomics at the level of individual industries.

In general, economic theory is the methodological basis of all economic disciplines.

The origin and development of political economy

Economic problems have always been at the center of people's attention. We find fixed economic problems in myths, legends, and religious beliefs. The first scientific problems were also encountered in ancient times within the framework of a single philosophical science.

The accumulation of large volumes of economic knowledge leads to their dismemberment and isolation. The emergence of special research dates back to the beginning of the 17th century. (the birth of capitalism and the formation of national markets). Then the term political economy arose. It was first used by the French mercantilist scientist Antoine de Montchretien in 1615 in his Treatise on Political Economy, addressed to

to the king and queen. Mercantilism is the first school of political economy. Comes from the Italian word "mercante" - (merchant). Representatives of this trend identified the wealth of society with gold, and considered trade to be the source of wealth. The mercantilists contributed to the disintegration of feudalism and the primary accumulation of capital.

Classical PE arose in connection with the penetration of capital into the sphere of production. Classical PE was the dominant school in the 2nd half of 18th - early. 19th century The first representatives of this school - the physiocrats (nature and power), the founder of Francois Quesnay, considered production, but only agricultural production, as a source of wealth. Their main merit is that this was the first attempt to analyze social reproduction.

The merit of the representatives of classical PE William Petty, Adam Smith, David Ricardo is that they substantiated a number of important theoretical positions: 1) the source of social wealth is all social production; 2) introduced a method of abstraction, which opens up the possibility of penetration into the deep essence of the phenomena under study; 3) laid the foundations of the labor theory of value; 4) studied the mechanism of reproduction of social capital. 5) made an attempt to explain the laws governing economic phenomena; 6) advocated limiting government intervention in the economy and free trade.

IN mid and second half of the 19th century. petty-bourgeois PE developed in the works of Sismondi and Proudhon. It reflected the interests and views of small commodity producers; could not discover the laws of economic development and therefore turned out to be fruitless.

Marxist teaching entered the arena of economic theory from the mid-19th century

V. as one of the peaks of theoretical thought of that time. This is how it basically remains.

IN "Capital" gives a fairly deep theoretical reflection of the conditions for the development of free competition capitalism in the 18th century - AD. 19th century It was the economic teachings of Marxism that provided a solid foundation for the formation of PE as a science with a clearly defined subject. The analysis of production relations given by K. Marx in unity with the productive forces, his creation of a system of economic categories and laws, and analysis of the internal inconsistency of the economic system are generally recognized by world science. Marxism introduced the principle of historicism, which allowed Marx to discover the laws of economic development.

Modern economic theory is characterized by a large number of directions, schools, trends. Main: 1) neoclassical; 2) Keynesian; 3) monetarism; 4) institutional-sociological. They differ in their interpretation of the roles of the market and the state, their relationship and interaction in economic development.

1) Neoclassical comes from the fundamental position of the classical school about the market and competition as natural conditions for the functioning and development of the economy. The market mechanism of self-regulation is considered the only effective way of functioning of the economy. Government intervention can lead to disruption of economic balance and a decrease in efficiency. Neoclassical theory is based on the theories of marginal utility and productivity.

2) Keynesianism arose in 30s of the 20th century, due to the need to bring the economy out of the global crisis of 29-33. J.M. Keynes published the work “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money” in 1936.

Basic provisions: the market mechanism is not able to completely eliminate crises and unemployment; government regulatory intervention is necessary, using taxes, subsidies, and interest.

3) The focus of monetarists is anti-crisis measures: stimulating economic activity using the financial and credit system, money circulation, inflation to increase demand and spur production.

4) Institutional-sociological direction. The object of the study is such public institutions as corporations, trade unions, and the state. At the same time, the focus is on universal human values. They oppose excessive ideologization of public life, against the militarization of the economy, for indicative state economic planning, for guaranteed incomes, for the expansion of state social programs, for the state organizing the retraining of workers in connection with technological unemployment.

The economic science of Ukraine in modern conditions must creatively use the global potential of economic thought.

Subject and method of political economy

PE - social science. Studies social relations between people that develop in the process of production, distribution, exchange and consumption of life goods. Economic relations are relationships:

1) regarding the economic connection of workers with the means of production;

2) regarding the organization of the production process;

3) regarding the appropriation and use of production results.

PE clarifies the laws that govern the production, distribution, exchange and consumption of vital goods in human society and clarifies the ways and directions of their use.

Economic relations between people are objective, i.e. independent of their will and consciousness, because their production and economic activities are objective. Economic relations are systematically organized, their formative factor being relations of ownership of the means and results of production. There are two subsystems in the system of economic relations:

1) organizational and economic relations;

2) socio-economic relations.

Organizational-economic relations are relations regarding the organization of production as a process of creating vital goods.

Socio-economic relations are relations regarding the possession of factors of production and the use of production results. These include: property relations, a set of economic interests, management relations, relations of distribution, exchange and consumption.

PE makes excursions into other sciences, touches on political and ideological relations, especially economic and social policy, psychology, and also comes into contact with the sciences that study engineering and production technology.

The main methods of cognition of economic processes are divided into two groups: 1) empirical; 2) theoretical.

Empirical - consist of collecting facts, taking into account all the changes that occur with them, grouping them, and mathematical and statistical processing.

Theoretical methods are a means of penetrating into the deep essence of the phenomena under study, revealing the laws of their functioning and development.

In political economy, theoretical methods consist mainly of abstract inferences, putting forward and testing hypotheses, and hypothetical modeling of economic processes. The method of scientific abstraction is widely used - abstraction from secondary, unimportant aspects of the phenomenon under consideration in order to highlight the primary, deep properties that reveal its essence.

Through the method of abstraction, economic laws and categories are formed. The best means of testing put forward hypotheses and constructed models are experiments, i.e. recreating the corresponding processes in laboratory conditions. In political economy, laboratory experiments are impossible, and economic experiments are very limited. But to some extent this is compensated by the wide scope of theoretical discussions among academic economists, conducted in the press, at conferences, and symposiums. When studying facts, putting forward and testing hypotheses, methods of analysis and synthesis, induction and deduction are used.

Analysis - decomposition, dismemberment of the studied object into its component parts. One of the methods is penetration into the deep essence of the phenomena under study.

Synthesis is the study of a subject in the unity and interaction of all its components, its systemic integrity.

Induction is the construction of generalizing conclusions, theoretical conclusions, economic laws based on empirical observations.

Deduction is a counter, opposite movement of research thought - from general scientific conclusions to specific phenomena for the purpose of: 1) scientific assessment; 2) deepening, clarifying, improving the quality of general scientific conclusions and laws.

Economic laws and categories

Economic laws are internal, significant, stable, repeating cause-and-effect relationships and dependencies of people's economic relations. The objective nature of economic laws is due to the following circumstances:

1) the production of vital goods is carried out on the basis and with the use of objects, laws, forces of nature that exist independently of the will and consciousness of people;

2) the material basis of human life is their continuous exchange with nature; they cannot stop consumption, as the most important component of this exchange, and therefore cannot stop production at their discretion, cannot arbitrarily manipulate the volumes and types of production.

Economic laws act as the dominant trend in the socio-economic development of society. They manifest themselves not in each individual phenomenon or process, but in their entirety over fairly long periods of time; they are not demonic overlords who turn people into obedient servants, they determine the general logic of economic development. People are not powerless before these economic laws, they are not deprived of their interests and active initiative in their implementation. Laws are independent of the will and consciousness of people, but not of their activities. By learning economic laws and carrying out their activities in line with them, people achieve high results in their activities; activities that go against them bring difficulties.

Every branch of scientific knowledge carries out typification and classification of many phenomena being studied. The result of these generalizations in economics are economic categories.

The economic category is a scientific collective concept that abstractly and generally characterizes the essence of many homogeneous, similar economic phenomena. Economic categories are true because those relations exist, of which they are a reflection.

Functions of political economy

PE studies the relationships between people in the decisive sphere of their life: economic activity. The significance of PE in the life of society can be characterized by its functions.

PE, as one of the branches of scientific knowledge, performs:

1) cognitive function. With it, PE ensures the accumulation of scientific knowledge, increasing the intellectual potential of society, expands the scientific horizons of people, equips them with knowledge of the objective laws of economic development of society, and the power of scientific foresight.

2) methodological - PE studies production and economic relations of people in their deepest essence. This is a fundamental science and is the methodological basis of all economic sciences. It's a kind of economic philosophy.

3) practical - PE - the theoretical basis of the economic policy of the state, enterprises, firms. Based on the laws it discovers and its theoretical conclusions, government bodies and firms determine their program goals, economic strategy and tactics. PE helps build economic potential.

4) ideological - PE shapes views, social ideas, public consciousness. It is the initial basis for the formation of economic and political thinking.

Questions to prepare for the seminar:

1. The emergence and main stages of development of political economy.

2. Subject and method of political economy.

3. Laws, principles and categories of political economy.

4. Functions of political economy. The place of political economy in the system of economic sciences.

Terms and concepts

Political economy, economic sciences, mercantilism, physiocrats, utopian socialism, Marxism, economic laws, categories, methodology, analysis, synthesis, scientific abstraction, induction, deduction, economic policy, microeconomics, macroeconomics.

Abstract topics

· Interpretations of the subject of political economy by various schools of economists.

· Economic theories of the Ancient World.

· Development of domestic political economy.

· Nobel Prize winners in economics.

Period 1917-1921 in the development of domestic economic thought is characterized by its sharp politicization.

Theoretical ideas about socialism and the transition period of the leadership of the Bolshevik Party largely determined the path of development of domestic economic thought for many years to come. The results of the first socialist reforms led to some polarization of economic views among the leading theoreticians of the party.

V.I. Lenin comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to temporarily suspend the Red Guard’s attack on capital in the form of the nationalization of private property in order to establish the proper functioning of the emerging sector of the economy. He substantiates ideas about the existence in the future of various contradictory economic structures, about the principles of stimulating and organizing labor in new conditions, and attracting bourgeois specialists. These ideas will become the basis of the theory and practice of the NEP.

However, the leading theorists of Bolshevism L. D. Trotsky, N. I. Bukharin, E. A. Preobrazhensky held other views.

L. D. Trotsky puts forward concept of militarization of labor. Its main idea is the creation of a system of forced labor, a barracks-like organization of society. Production was organized according to a military model, where the issue of labor discipline was resolved according to wartime laws (those who evaded work were sent to punishment teams or concentration camps). Such an organization led, in his opinion, to the rapid awareness by workers of the need to work for the benefit of the whole society, which, in turn, would be the main incentive to work, and, consequently, to the growth of its efficiency.

From the definition of the role of the proletariat in the revolution, Trotsky’s attitude towards the peasantry as a counter-revolutionary part of society followed. This was reflected in the policy of collectivization and the policy of industrial construction through the transfer of funds from the agricultural sector.

The views were different the Menshevik part of Russian Social Democracy, found itself in opposition to the new government. According to G.V. Plekhanov, Russia was not ready for the transition to socialism due to the insufficient development of capitalism. The same point of view was expressed by P. P. Maslov. They believed that a long-term reform path was possible in Russia.

Already after the February Revolution of 1917, Maslov defended the concept of preserving the commodity-capitalist economy with the simultaneous reform of agrarian relations, state organization in order to change the distribution of national income, and the rational distribution of productive forces. The first economic transformations carried out by the Soviet government were met critically by the Mensheviks.

The reaction to the policy of “war communism” was similar. The Mensheviks proposed a number of measures to restore the national economy: the state’s abandonment of the policy of general nationalization of industry; attracting private capital and cooperation; encouragement by the state of small industry working on the free market; attracting foreign capital; abolition of the militarization of labor and limitation of labor conscription; free development of independent workers and peasant organizations; changes in food policy; providing the peasant with incentives to expand and improve the farm; preservation of the peasants' inviolable use of the land they received during the revolution; reducing the number of Soviet farms in agriculture to the minimum number that the state can maintain as exemplary and economically profitable; leasing of backward farms; freedom of disposal of peasants' surplus products. This program of economic reform coincides with the main measures of the new economic policy introduced by the Bolsheviks in the spring of 1921.

The post-war period had a huge impact on all aspects of the life of Soviet society, including the state of economic thought. This was the time when the dominance of the ideas of Marxist political economy was established. During that period, the struggle between Marxists and economists of other directions intensified. Here we can highlight the stages in the development of economic thought.

The 20s can be called the “golden decade” of Russian economic science. Economists in the 20s solved the problem of substantiating the NEP, developed models for modernizing the national economic mechanism. The problems of the market and commodity-money relations took first place in practical importance. During this period, some Soviet economists were influenced by the principles of “war communism” and K. Marx’s views on this problem. Many party leaders and economists did not immediately understand the meaning of the new economic policy and viewed it as a retreat from the option of a faster transition to socialism.

Since the late 20s. As a result of the collapse of the NEP, the influence of the political factor in economic science is increasing. The transition of economic science to a new state, characterized by a decline in the level of theoretical research, led to the establishment of party monopoly in science in the 30s and 40s. Another feature of this period was the increasing self-isolation of domestic science from foreign economic thought.

In the 30s Discussions in political economy began to pursue the goal of a theoretical and economic substantiation of the emerging command-administrative system and propaganda of the Stalinist interpretation of Marxism. A.L. Vainshtein, A.V. Chayanov, L.M. Kritsman are developing systems of natural material accounting as projects for centralized natural economy. But most scientists were in the position of preserving commodity-money relations under socialism.

In the 1930s, the official point of view was established about the inevitability of long-term preservation of trade and money before the transition to communism. Proponents of this concept argue for the need for commodity-money relations as follows: the incompleteness of the process of socialization and preservation of the small-scale commodity sector; the presence of difficulties in the system of direct accounting, control and distribution; the existing differences between city and countryside, mental and physical labor; different levels of qualifications of workers and technical levels of enterprises, industries, etc.; the need to ensure the material interest of workers, etc. Thus, the concept of the limited role of commodity-money relations under socialism is affirmed, and the idea of ​​the inevitability of the withering away of commodity-money relations becomes indisputable.

Another issue discussed in the discussions of the interwar period was the problem of national economic planning. In the 1920s, two approaches to understanding the role and tasks of planning emerged.

Proponents of the genetic principle of planning believed that it should be based on the forecast, i.e. how the national economy will develop under the condition of non-intervention by the state.

Proponents of the teleological principle, on the contrary, believed that the main thing in planning was to determine goals, while the enthusiasm and consciousness of workers would help achieve them.

An attempt to reconcile the positions of geneticists and teleologists was made by V. A. Bazarov. He put forward the idea of ​​combining these approaches, according to which the teleological principle of planning extended to nationalized sectors of the national economy, and the genetic principle was applicable mainly to the agricultural sector. Due to the dominance of the latter in the national economic structure, the genetically developed plan became the basis of the overall plan.

The discussion was far from scientific, and the position of teleologists was based on the ideology of the Bolshevik party. In 1927, the first five-year plan was adopted, ignoring the objective laws of development of the country's national economy.

With the transition to the NEP, controversy arose agricultural policy. An outstanding scientist working in the field of peasant economics was A.V. Chayanov, leader of the organizational and production school. Chayanov studied the family-labor peasant economy in interaction with the surrounding economic environment. He identified a number of paradoxes and features of the development of peasant farms in Russia, believing that it is not always possible to apply market criteria to the assessment of working peasant farms. Chayanov came to the conclusion that a peasant economy differs from a farm in the motive of production: the farmer is guided by the criterion of profitability, and the peasant is guided by an organizational and production plan, which represents the totality of the monetary budget, the labor balance over time and in various industries and types of activities, the turnover of funds and products.

The components of the organizational and production plan are the balance of labor (farming, crafts), the balance of means of production (livestock, equipment) and the monetary budget (income, expenses).

Chayanov came to the conclusion that prices for agricultural products are not the main factor in peasant farming. Therefore, the farmer and the peasant will react differently to lower prices. The farmer will expand production volumes, and the peasant will reduce it. The regular practice of waste fisheries, which weakened their own agricultural economy, gave peasants the opportunity to more evenly distribute labor resources across the seasons.

The concept of the organizational and production plan created by Chayanov made it possible to explain many of the features of the economic behavior of peasant farming and take them into account in practice when forming agricultural policy.

Chayanov also worked on a methodology for assessing the balance of the labor peasant economy, using, among other things, the methods of the theory of “marginal utility.” The use of the methodology would make it possible to predict changes in the cost and prices of agricultural products.

The concept of the organizational plan was embedded in Chayanov's theory of cooperation, in which he saw the path to increasing the efficiency of the agricultural sector. He insisted on the gradual implementation of cooperation, believing that only those types of activities should be assigned to cooperatives, the technical optimum of which exceeds the capabilities of individual peasant farming.

Three cycles of economic development identified by Kondratiev

Another prominent scientist of this period was N. D. Kondratiev (1892-1938). Brought him the greatest fame theory of large cycles of the market.

Kondratiev processed time series of the following economic indicators: commodity prices, interest on capital, wages, foreign trade turnover, coal production and consumption, production of cast iron and lead for four countries - England, Germany, the USA and France. The observation period was about 140 years. As a result of data processing, he identified a trend showing the existence of large periodic wave cycles lasting from 48 to 55 years.

N.D. Kondratiev established a number of empirical patterns that accompanied large cycles. For example, an upward wave begins when a sufficient amount of capital is accumulated to invest in a radical upgrade of equipment and the creation of new technologies. At some point, the rate of capital accumulation decreases, which leads to a turning point in the dynamics of development. During the period of a downward wave, free capital accumulates and efforts to improve technology increase, which creates the preconditions for a new rise.

In world economic science, interest in the problem of cycles and patterns of cyclical development intensified after the Great Depression (crisis of 1929-1933). Kondratieff's hypothesis found many supporters and followers. It has firmly become one of the largest achievements of world science. Since then, these cycles have been called “Kondratieff cycles” along with the three-year Kitchin cycles and the ten-year Juglar cycles.

In the USSR, his concept was not appreciated due to its discrepancy with the official doctrine of the general crisis of capitalism.

Despite the process of vulgarization of political economy, Soviet economic science retained an area in which domestic scientists not only kept pace with their Western colleagues, but also achieved priority. This is the area economic and mathematical research, or econometrics.

One of the achievements of the school was the development of the concept of the intersectoral balance of the national economy. Already during the development of the first five-year plan, the first balance sheet constructions began to appear (“Balance of the National Economy of the USSR 1923-1924”). P. I. Popov, L. N. Litoshchenko, N. O. Dubenetsky, F. G. Dubrovnikov, I. A. Morozova, O. A. Kvitkin, A. G. Pervukhin participated in the work on them.

The works of Soviet scientists attracted the attention of the American scientist V. V. Leontiev, whose name is associated with the resumption of work on compiling input-output balances in the USSR in the late 50s.

One of the most prominent representatives of Russian econometrics was L. V. Kantorovich (1912-1986). He set about solving a very practical problem - the distribution of various types of raw materials among different processing machines in order to maximize product output for a given assortment. To solve this problem, Kantorovich developed a special method in which a special estimate called a resolving factor was associated with each constraint of the original problem. The optimal design of the problem was determined as a result of an iterative process, during which the resolution factors were successively adjusted. Thus, Kantorovich created a new science - linear programming. The results of the study were presented in a brochure “Mathematical methods of organizing and planning production”(1939), in which, in addition to the problem with machine tools, the well-known transport problem, problems of minimizing waste, maximizing the return from the use of complex raw materials, and the best distribution of crop area were considered. In 1975, Kaptorovich was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for his outstanding contribution to world economic science.

In 1939, a major economic and mathematical work was published - “Methods for measuring the national economic efficiency of planned and design options” V. V. Novozhilova (1892-1970), which formulated the task of drawing up a national economic plan. The optimal plan, according to Novozhilov, is one that requires a minimum amount of labor costs for a given volume of production.

In 1958 V. S. Nemchinov (1894-1964) organized the country's first Laboratory of Economic and Mathematical Methods at the Academy of Sciences. In Nemchinov's work “Economic and mathematical methods and models”(1964) the main directions of application of mathematics in economic science were determined: development of the theory of planning calculations and the general mathematical methodology of optimal planning; development of intersectoral and interregional balances; mathematical analysis of the expanded reproduction scheme; optimal transport planning; solving technical and economic problems; development of mathematical statistics and its use in the national economy.

Within the framework of economics and mathematics in the 50-60s. ideas were put forward about the need to use indirect levers of state regulation of the economy, the need to reduce the scope of directive planning and, in connection with this, reduce the bureaucratic apparatus, etc.

In the 60s These ideas were reflected in the concept of the system of optimal functioning of the economy (SOFE), which left a noticeable mark on the development of Soviet econometrics. SOFE acted as an alternative to the prevailing methods of managing the national economy.

In the 50-60s. Discussions about the role of the plan and the market continued. The attitude towards the role of planning and market levers in the economic system of socialism became the main criterion for the classification of Soviet political economists. In 1965-1967. an attempt was made at economic reform based on economic management methods (the concept of E. G. Liberman). However, in science, supporters of the planned approach, whose representatives were N. A. Tsagolov, N. V. Hessin, N. S. Malyshev, V. A. Sobol, A. V. Bachurin, L. E. Mints, maintained a monopoly.

Changes in the world, the acceleration of scientific and technical progress in countries with market economies by the beginning of the 80s revealed the complete failure of economic management based on administrative-command methods. Some economists (G. Lisichkin, N. Petrakov, O. Latsis, etc.) were inclined to the need for serious reforms. The origins of perestroika were such economists as A. Aganbegyan, L. Abalkin, A. Anchishkin, A. Grinberg, P. Bunich, S. Shatalin.