===================== HES POSTING ======================
Long have I been interested in this issue. The first time I decided
to research it was when I was beginning to write a book on 'The
Pre-History of Economics - From Machiavelli to Adam Smith' (published
in Portuguese in 1988). I found some good clues in the
Appendix to Katouzian's book Ideology and Method in Economics
(McMillan, 1980).
A few points are worthwile mentioning:
1. The etymological implications of the expression 'Political Economy'
are well known, and can be analysed with the help of concepts borrowed
from the sociology of knowledge.
2. There are also some 'ideological' implications. Throughout the times
the expression referred to a certain approach to economic problems, as
with the German Historical School or with Marxian economics.
3. The transition from Political Economy to Economics is clearly
connected with the advent of Marginalism. It was sponsored by people like
Walras, who began to talk about 'Pure Economics' in his books.
4. There is a further linguistic dimension to be considered, as Oskar
Lange puts in the Foreword of his book. Whereas the English language has a
specific expression for the 'neoclassical' approach to economic theory,
the same does not hold for Latin languages. In French, Italian, Spanish
and Portuguese there is not a specific translation for Economics. The
words for Political Economy are 'Economia Politica', while the word for
Economics is 'Economia'. The latter designates both economic science
(economics) and the economy of a country.
5. In part for this reason, many Latin languages still preserve the
expression 'political economy' alongside economics, in spite of the
internationalization process that economics is experiencing in late
twentieth century, both as a field of knowledge and as a profession. There
is not a necessary association between the expression and Marxian economic
thought.
6. The maintenance of the expression 'Political Economy' has clear
political and ideological implications. (It isn't trivial, as Perelman
argued). It says something about the specific form in which economics is
constructed in most European countries, in turn closely associated to the
important role of economists as policy makers. We can learn more about
this in a special 1991 issue of Kyklos.
7. There is a curious and somewhat paradoxical situation in countries like
Brazil, which remained for a long time strongly influenced by the French
culture - although not so much in the case of economics. French influence
in economics further shrunk after the sixties, when the first graduate
programs were created, based on US models. It did not disappear, however,
and it remains strong in philosophy and the social sciences (sociology,
anthropology).
8. The semantic problem persists of not having a Portuguese word for
'economics'. This has professional implications. In most if not all
Latin American countries, economists have persistently played important
roles in the definition and implementation of economic and social
policies. As it is well known, the dynamics of Latin American economies
still relies heavily on the Government. New winds are blowing
(globalization, privatization, technological changes etc.) are not likely
to induce radical changes in this overall picture.
9. Was transition towards Economics benefitial? In some senses, no.
Although we should no longer think in 'embeddedness' terms, as pointed,
the political dimension of economics should be still kept in mind,
specially when dealing with subjects such as Welfare and Development. In
other words, economics should keep its prescriptive role, and it seems
that most economists in countries like Brazil are convinced of this.
With little elaboration, these are some considerations that I thought
might contribute to this ongoing discussion.
Ana Maria Bianchi
Universidade de Sao Paulo, Depto. de Economia
[log in to unmask]
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]
|
