政治经济学比较的视角

Political Economy A COMPARATIVE APPROACH Second Edition Barry Clark PRAEGER Westport, Connecticut London -iii- Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Clark Barry Stewart, 1948- Political economy: a comparative approach / Barry Clark.- 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-275-95869-8 (alk. paper).- ISBN 0-275-96370-5 (pbk.: alk. paper) 1. Comparative economics. I. Title. HB90.C52 1998 330-dc21 98-15657 British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data is available. Copyright 1998 by Barry Clark All rights reserved. No portion of this book may be reproduced, by any process or technique, without the express written consent of the publisher. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number: 98-15657 ISBN: 0-275-95869-8 0-275-96370-5 (pbk.) First published in 1998 Praeger Publishers, 88 Post Road West, Westport, CT 06881 An imprint of Greenwood Publishing Group, Inc. Printed in the United States of America + TM The paper used in this book complies with the Permanent Paper Standard issued by the National Information Standards Organization (Z39.48-1984). 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -iv- Contents PART I POLITICAL ECONOMY: AN OVERVIEW 1 Chapter 1 Politics, Economics, and Political Economy 3 Politics and Economics 3 The Market as an Economic Institution 6 Government as a Political Institution 12 Government as an Economic Institution 15 Political Economy 18 Chapter 2 The History of Political Economy 21 Origins of Political Economy 21 Classical Political Economy 25 The Radical Extension 25 The Conservative Response 28 -v- Neoclassical Economics 31 Modern Political Economy 33 PART II CONTENDING PERSPECTIVES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY 39 Chapter 3 The Classical Liberal Perspective 41 Architects of Classical Liberalism 41 Principles of Classical Liberalism 48 Classical Liberalism Today 49 An Assessment of Classical Liberalism 52 Chapter 4 The Radical Perspective 55 Architects of Radicalism 55 Principles of Radicalism 63 Radicalism Today 64 An Assessment of Radicalism 68 Chapter 5 The Conservative Perspective 71 Architects of Conservatism 72 Principles of Conservatism 79 Conservatism Today 81 An Assessment of Conservatism 85 Chapter 6 The Modern Liberal Perspective 89 Architects of Modern Liberalism 89 Principles of Modern Liberalism 97 Modern Liberalism Today 98 An Assessment of Modern Liberalism 101 PART III CONTEMPORARY ISSUES IN POLITICAL ECONOMY 105 Chapter 7 Government and the Market 107 The Classical Liberal Perspective 107 The Radical Perspective 114 The Conservative Perspective 118 The Modern Liberal Perspective 122 -vi- Chapter 8 Inflation and Unemployment 133 The Classical Liberal Perspective 133 The Radical Perspective 138 The Conservative Perspective 143 The Modern Liberal Perspective 146 Chapter 9 Poverty and Inequality 157 The Classical Liberal Perspective 158 The Radical Perspective 163 The Conservative Perspective 168 The Modern Liberal Perspective 172 Chapter 10 Labor and Industry 183 The Classical Liberal Perspective 183 The Radical Perspective 187 The Conservative Perspective 192 The Modern Liberal Perspective 195 Chapter 11 Minorities and Discrimination 203 The Classical Liberal Perspective 204 The Radical Perspective 207 The Conservative Perspective 210 The Modern Liberal Perspective 213 Chapter 12 The Political Economy of Gender 219 The Classical Liberal Perspective 220 The Radical Perspective 224 The Conservative Perspective 228 The Modern Liberal Perspective 232 Chapter 13 Education and Culture 241 The Classical Liberal Perspective 242 The Radical Perspective 245 The Conservative Perspective 251 The Modern Liberal Perspective 255 Chapter 14 Pollution and the Environment 263 The Classical Liberal Perspective 264 The Radical Perspective 268 -vii- The Conservative Perspective 272 The Modern Liberal Perspective 274 Chapter 15 International Trade and Development 283 The Classical Liberal Perspective 284 The Radical Perspective 288 The Conservative Perspective 292 The Modern Liberal Perspective 295 Chapter 16 Science, Ideology, and Political Economy 307 Economics as Ideology 311 Rejoinders from Economists 315 The Science of Political Economy 318 Conclusion 322 Bibliography 329 Index 353 -viii- Introduction Political economy was the original social science. Theorists such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, and Karl Marx developed broad visions of the social system. Not until the latter half of the nineteenth century did political economy splinter into economics, political science, sociology, social history, social psychology, and social philosophy. The motives for this reorientation were mixed. By partitioning the study of human behavior and society into narrower subdisciplines, social scientists hoped to emulate the analytical power and precision of the natural sciences. However, ideological motives also played a role in the disintegration of political economy. The all-encompassing visions of Smith, Mill, and Marx revealed conflict and tension in society. As political resistance to free-market liberalism mounted in the mid-nineteenth century, social scientists attempted to establish a body of objective knowledge from which to formulate reasoned arguments for particular social policies. By adhering to strict logic and factual data, they hoped to resolve divisive political issues. Proponents of each of the new social sciences recognized the importance of defining their scope and method of analysis to establish boundaries separating the disciplines. As the most immediate heir to the legacy of political economy, economics held the greatest potential for emulating natural science because its scope was confined to behaviors most amenable to -ix- observation and measurement. The political, social, cultural, historical, and psychological dimensions of human existence were relegated to other disciplines, while economists focused on the individual pursuit of material well-being in the market. The assumption of individual rationality and the use of money as a yardstick for measuring cause and effect enabled economists to construct an impressive theoretical edifice borrowed largely from nineteenth century physics. Modern economics often elicits skepticism from other social scientists. Criticism is directed toward its simplistic assumptions about human behavior, its focus on material and pecuniary interests, its blindness to social relationships, and its esoteric jargon, graphs, and mathematics. Yet, simultaneously, many social scientists tacitly proclaim their admiration of economics as they increasingly borrow concepts, theories, and methods of analysis from the so-called dismal science. These conflicting attitudes are evident even among economists. On one hand, economics has been labeled the queen of the social sciences, and economists have extended their scope of analysis to include issues ranging from government and law to family life and sexual behavior. Yet, underlying this hubris is a caldron of internal dissension. In addition to the expected attacks by non-mainstream economists, various Nobel prize winners and widely respected theorists have expressed qualms about the direction in which modern economics is moving. The focus on mathematics and theoretical rigor, they charge, has pushed aside questions of relevance or applicability. Until recently, economists were faced with the discomfiting fact that as their models gained elegance, the real economy was relatively stagnant and a wide range of social problems were actually worsening. A question poses itself: how can a discipline in such internal disarray merit emulation by other social scientists? The answer to this paradox lies in the allure of science. Scientific analysis carries tremendous weight in settling intellectual disputes and formulating public policy. In the social sciences, the quality of scholarship is often judged by its resemblance to the physical sciences, and no other social science has been able to match the rigor and elegance of economic theory. Economists have been successful in large part because their simplistic assumptions and narrow focus permit them to borrow mathematical techniques from the physical sciences. Historians, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists have been unable to reach consensus on a single scientific paradigm within their respective disciplines. Economists, however, formed such a consensus from the 1950s to the early 1970s, and their advocacy of Keynesian policies propelled them into positions of influence at the highest levels of government. Yet the breakdown of the Keynesian consensus during the 1970s and economists inability to converge on a new paradigm have diminished -x- the scientific status of economics even as other social scientists increasingly rely on its reputed scientific models and methods. The quest for a science of economics has not been futile. The sophistication with which empirical data is gathered and analyzed, the construction of elaborate models of the macroeconomy, and the application of microeconomic theory to decisionmaking have all been impressive. Yet the public image of economics remains clouded. If economists are indeed scientists, citizens expect the same expertise and objectivity exhibited by engineers or medical professionals. When economists pronounce widely divergent assessments, forecasts, and policy prescriptions, public reaction ranges from skepticism to disdain. However, economists disagree not because they are inept, but because they are humans who embody the conflicting values present in modern societies. The claim that value judgments underlie economics does not necessarily imply that economists consciously seek to advance their personal visions of the good society. For the most part, economists are committed to scientific research in which the facts are permitted to speak for themselves. However, values enter into economics even before research commences. Values affect the choice of issues to be investigated, the theoretical concepts to be used, and the selection of variables to be measured. Although the scientific method of controlled experimentation is designed to keep values out of research, this method has limited applicability in economics, where the laboratory is human society with its complex interaction of innumerable and often unmeasurable variables. Economists may deny or suppress ideological disputes within their profession for several reasons. First, the reasoning and conclusions of economists lose the aura of scientific authority if they reflect the same unresolved value conflicts confronting all citizens. Most economists view themselves as social scientists seeking to objectively analyze and improve the workings of the economy. Any admission of value commitments might undermine their status as experts possessing higher forms of knowledge. Second, economic education is transformed when alternative values are introduced into the classroom. The principles and applications of neoclassical microeconomics and Keynesian macroeconomics that now occupy a substantial portion of the curriculum can no longer be treated as the whole of economic wisdom. Students face the challenge of grasping several competing perspectives from which to understand the economy, and professors can no longer rely on their own mastery of a single theoretical approach if students are to be fully exposed to the breadth of economic thought. Finally, many economists suppress the ideological dimensions of their discipline because they believe that ideological debate can have no resolution. Without scientific appeals to objective evidence, disagreements may degenerate into open conflict. If economics were perceived as merely -xi- sophisticated ideology, authoritative decisions by policymakers could be replaced by chaotic struggles for power among competing interests. Despite these concerns, maintaining the myth of value-free economics poses corresponding dangers. First, economics embodies ethical judgments that would be controversial if made explicit. When these judgments are introduced into policy under the guise of science, one set of values prevails without public debate, violating the principles of a democratic society. Second, in the realm of economic education, students may gain impressive technical sophistication while remaining naive about the values underlying their knowledge and skills. Lacking this awareness, students believe they have acquired a genuinely scientific technique for analyzing social issues and making policy recommendations. Those students who become professional economists or policy analysts may be baffled when their scientific prescriptions are regarded by others as simply one viewpoint among many. Third, the effort to minimize public dissent by maintaining the scientific status of economists advice reflects a low opinion of citizen participation in democratic societies. By promoting one set of values and portraying other values as merely special interests, economists narrow the scope for popular input into political decisionmaking. Citizens biased by personal interests are portrayed as incapable of making responsible choices in political matters. However, by sealing important decisions from democratic input, scientific policymakers offer little incentive to develop citizenship skills or to engage in public dialogues concerning competing visions of the good society. Moreover, scientific analysis of social issues contains an inherent bias. Policymakers relying on scientific methods will inevitably focus on observable aspects of an issue while de-emphasizing or ignoring intangible or ethical considerations. The method of science tends to limit the scope of analysis to that which can be measured. This text provides a balance to the currently dominant focus on scientific technique in economics education. Integrating economic analysis with material from history, political theory, sociology, psychology, and ethics reveals the underlying value commitments fueling debates over public policy. Social science cannot be value-free, but the values underlying various theories and techniques can at least be made evident and open to discussion. The purpose of textbooks is to present a body of knowledge nearly universally accepted within a particular academic discipline. In the case of political economy, however, even the most basic terms and principles are subject to debate. The many contending perspectives in political economy dictate a comparative approach to the subject. In this text, four perspectives-Classical Liberal, Radical, Conservative, and Modern Liberal-are covered. Political economy is introduced in the first two chapters; the next four chapters are devoted to the theorists and ideas associated with each of the four perspectives. Chapters seven through fifteen cover major issues in -xii- modern political economy and, for each issue, examine the analyses and policies offered by these perspectives. Finally, chapter sixteen examines the roles of science and ideology in political economy. The contending perspectives struggling for dominance in political economy represent dramatically different visions of the good society. Theoretical debates over economic and political issues are ultimately based on these visions, and citizens need to be aware of and consider the value commitments underlying alternative policies before choosing among them. -xiii PART I POLITICAL ECONOMY: AN OVERVIEW -1- Chapter 1 Politics, Economics, and Political Economy In all the political systems of the world, much of politics is economics, and most of economics is politics. Charles Lindblom Economics does not usefully exist apart from politics. John Kenneth Galbraith There is no such thing as a purely economic issue. Milton Friedman POLITICS AND ECONOMICS As a prelude to the study of political economy, a firm grasp of the words politics and economics is essential. Unfortunately, these widely used terms lack clear definition. As depicted below, politics and economics can be distinguished with reference to three characteristics: the primary goal being pursued, the institutional arena within which the goal is pursued, and the primary actor who chooses the goal. -3- Economics Politics Primary Goal Prosperity Justice InstitutionalArena Market Government Primary Actor Individual Community Using these distinctions, economics might be defined as the individual pursuit of prosperity through the market, while politics is the communal pursuit of justice through government. Closer scrutiny of each of the three distinguishing characteristics, however, will reveal the unsatisfactory nature of these definitions. Primary Goals Economics is associated with efforts to achieve the highest possible material standard of living from available resources. The primary economic goal of prosperity has three dimensions: efficiency, growth, and stability. Politics, on the other hand, is linked with efforts to establish and protect rights so citizens can receive and hold that to which they are entitled. The primary political goal of justice, too, includes three dimensions: individual freedom, equity in the distribution of benefits and burdens, and social order. However, distinguishing between economics and politics solely by referring to their respective goals is ultimately unsatisfactory because prosperity and justice are inextricably linked. A prosperous society is more likely to be perceived as a just society because the range of individual choice is broadened and order tends to prevail. Conversely, a just society fosters prosperity by providing open opportunities, fair rewards, and individual security to motivate production and accumulation of wealth. Because prosp