Political Economy Defined

No.1
Political economy
WRITTEN BY:
 David N. Balaam
 Michael A. Veseth
https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-economy

See Article History

Political economy, branch of social science that studies the relationships between
individuals and society and between markets and the state, using a diverse set of tools
and methods drawn largely from economics, political science, and sociology. The
term political economyis derived from the Greek polis, meaning “city” or “state,”
and oikonomos, meaning “one who manages a household or estate.” Political
economy thus can be understood as the study of how a country—the public’s
household—is managed or governed, taking into account both political and economic
factors.
Historical Development
Political economy is a very old subject of intellectual inquiry but a relatively young
academic discipline. The analysis of political economy (in terms of the nature of state
and market relations), both in practical terms and as moral philosophy, has been
traced to Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle as well as to the Scholastics
and those who propounded a philosophy based on natural law. A critical development
in the intellectual inquiry of political economy was the prominence in the 16th to
the18th century of the mercantilist school, which called for a strong role for the state
in economic regulation. The writings of the Scottish economist Sir James Steuart, 4th
Baronet Denham, whose Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy (1767) is
considered the first systematic work in English on economics, and the policies
of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–83), controller general to Louis XIV of France,
epitomize mercantilism in theory and in practice, respectively.
Political economy emerged as a distinct field of study in the mid-18th century, largely
as a reaction to mercantilism, when the Scottish philosophers Adam Smith (1723–90)
and David Hume (1711–76) and the French economist François Quesnay (1694–1774)
began to approach this study in systematic rather than piecemeal terms. They took
a secularapproach, refusing to explain the distribution of wealth and power in terms of
God’s will and instead appealing to political, economic, technological, natural, and
social factors and the complex interactions between them. Indeed, Smith’s landmark
work—An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), which
provided the first comprehensive system of political economy—conveys in its title the
broad scope of early political economic analysis. Although the field itself was new,
some of the ideas and approaches it drew upon were centuries old. It was influenced
by the individualist orientation of the English political philosophers Thomas
Hobbes (1588–1679) and John Locke (1632–1704), the Realpolitik of the Italian
political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli(1469–1527), and the inductive method of
scientific reasoning invented by the English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561–1626).
Many works by political economists in the 18th century emphasized the role of
individuals over that of the state and generally attacked mercantilism. This is perhaps
best illustrated by Smith’s famous notion of the “invisible hand,” in which he argued
that state policies often were less effective in advancing social welfare than were the
self-interested acts of individuals. Individuals intend to advance only their own
welfare, Smith asserted, but in so doing they also advance the interests of society as if
they were guided by an invisible hand. Arguments such as these gave credence to
individual-centred analysis and policies to counter the state-centred theories of the
mercantilists.
In the 19th century English political economist David Ricardo (1772–1823) further
developed Smith’s ideas. His work—in particular his concept of comparative
advantage, which posited that states should produce and export only those goods that
they can generate at a lower cost than other nations and import those goods that other
countries can produce more efficiently—extolled the benefits of free trade and was
pivotal in undermining British mercantilism. About the same time
the utilitarianism of Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), James Mill (1773–1836), and
Mill’s son John Stuart Mill (1806–73) fused together economic analysis with calls for
the expansion of democracy.
Smith’s notion of individual-centred analysis of political economy did not go
unchallenged. The German American economist Friedrich List (1789–1846)
developed a more-systematic analysis of mercantilism that contrasted his national
system of political economy with what he termed Smith’s “cosmopolitical” system,
which treated issues as if national borders and interests did not exist. In the mid-19th
century communist historian and economist Karl Marx (1818–83) proposed a class-
based analysis of political economy that culminated in his massive treatise Das
Kapital, the first volume of which was published in 1867.
The holistic study of political economy that characterizes the works of Smith, List,
Marx, and others of their time was gradually eclipsed in the late 19th century by a
group of more narrowly focused and methodologically conventional disciplines, each
of which sought to throw light on particular elements of society, inevitably at the
expense of a broader view of social interactions. By 1890, when English neoclassical
economist Alfred Marshall (1842–1924) published his textbook on the Principles of
Economics, political economy as a distinct academic field had been essentially
replaced in universities by the separate disciplines of economics, sociology, political
science, and international relations. Marshall explicitly separated his subject—
economics or economic science—from political economy, implicitly privileging the
former over the latter, an act that reflected the general academic trend toward
specialization along methodological lines.
In the second half of the 20th century, as the social sciences (especially economics but
also political science) became increasingly abstract, formal, and specialized in both
focus and methodology, political economy was revived to provide a broader
framework for understanding complex national and international problems and events.
The field of political economy today encompasses several areas of study, including
the politics of economic relations, domestic political and economic issues, the
comparative study of political and economic systems, and international political
economy. The emergence of international political economy, first within international
relations and later as a distinct field of inquiry, marked the return of political economy
to its roots as a holistic study of individuals, states, markets, and society.
As many analyses by political economists have revealed, in actual
government decision making there is often a tension between economic and political
objectives. Since the 1970s, for example, the relationship between the United States
and China has been replete with difficulties for both countries. China consistently has
sought integration into the world economy—an effort best illustrated by its successful
campaign to join the World Trade Organization (WTO)—but has resisted domestic
political liberalization. The United States often has supported China’s economic
reforms because they promised to increase trade between the two countries, but the
U.S. government has been criticized by other countries and by some Americans for
“rewarding” China with most-favoured-nation trading status despite that country’s
poor record of upholding the basic human rights of its citizens. Likewise, China’s
government has faced domestic criticism not only from supporters of democracy but
also from conservative Chinese Communist Partymembers who oppose further
economic reforms. This example reflects the complex calculus involved as
governments attempt to balance both their political and their economic interests and to
ensure their own survival.
Economics And Political Economy
The relationship between political economy and the contemporary discipline
of economics is particularly interesting, in part because both disciplines claim to be
the descendants of the ideas of Smith, Hume, and John Stuart Mill. Whereas political
economy, which was rooted in moralphilosophy, was from the beginning very much a
normative field of study, economics sought to become objective and value-free.
Indeed, under the influence of Marshall, economists endeavoured to make their
discipline like the 17th-century physics of Sir Isaac Newton (1642–1727): formal,
precise, and elegant and the foundation of a broader intellectual enterprise. With the
publication in 1947 of Foundations of Economic Analysis by Paul Samuelson, who
brought complex mathematical tools to the study of economics, the bifurcation of
political economy and economics was complete. Mainstream political economy had
evolved into economic science, leaving its broader concerns far behind.
The distinction between economics and political economy can be illustrated by their
differing treatments of issues related to international trade. The economic analysis
of tariff policies, for example, focuses on the impact of tariffs on the efficient use of
scarce resources under a variety of different market environments, including perfect
(or pure) competition (several small suppliers), monopoly (one
supplier), monopsony (one buyer), and oligopoly (few suppliers).
Different analyticframeworks examine the direct effects of tariffs as well as the effects
on economic choices in related markets. Such a methodology is generally
mathematical and is based on the assumption that an actor’s economic behaviour is
rational and is aimed at maximizing benefits for himself. Although ostensibly a value-
free exercise, such economic analysis often implicitly assumes that policies that
maximize the benefits accruing to economic actors are also preferable from a social
point of view.
In contrast to the pure economic analysis of tariff policies, political economic analysis
examines the social, political, and economic pressures and interests that affect tariff
policies and how these pressures influence the political process, taking into account a
range of social priorities, international negotiating environments, development
strategies, and philosophical perspectives. In particular, political economic analysis
might take into account how tariffs can be used as a strategy to influence the pattern
of national economic growth (neo-mercantilism) or biases in the global system of
international trade that may favour developed countries over developing ones (neo-
Marxist analysis). Although political economy lacks a rigorous scientific method and
an objective analytic framework, its broad perspective affords a deeper understanding
of the many aspects of tariff policy that are not purely economic in nature.
National And Comparative Political Economy
The study of domestic political economy is concerned primarily with the relative
balance in a country’s economy between state and market forces. Much of this debate
can be traced to the thought of the English political economist John Maynard
Keynes (1883–1946), who argued in The General Theory of Employment, Interest,
and Money (1935–36) that there exists an inverse relationship
between unemployment and inflation and that governments should manipulate fiscal
policy to ensure a balance between the two. The so-called Keynesian revolution,
which occurred at a time when governments were attempting to amelioratethe effects
of the worldwide Great Depression of the 1930s, contributed to the rise of the welfare
state and to an increase in the size of government relative to the private sector. In
some countries, particularly the United States, the development of Keynesianism
brought about a gradual shift in the meaning of liberalism, from a doctrine calling for
a relatively passive state and an economy guided by the “invisible hand” of the market
to the view that the state should actively intervene in the economy in order to generate
growth and sustain employment levels.
From the 1930s Keynesianism dominated not only domestic economic policy but also
the development of the post-World War II Bretton Woodsinternational economic
system, which included the creation of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and
the World Bank. Indeed, Keynesianism was practiced by countries of all political
complexions, including those embracing capitalism (e.g., the United States and the
United Kingdom), social democracy (e.g., Sweden), and even fascism(e.g., the Nazi
Germany of Adolf Hitler). In the 1970s, however, many Western countries
experienced “stagflation,” or simultaneous high unemployment and inflation, a
phenomenon that contradicted Keynes’s view. The result was a revival of classical
liberalism, also known as “neoliberalism,” which became the cornerstone of economic
policy in the United States under President Ronald Reagan (1981–89) and in the
United Kingdom under Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher (1979–90). Led by the
American economist Milton Friedman and other proponents of monetarism (the view
that the chief determinant of economic growth is the supply of money rather than
fiscal policy), neoliberals and others argued that the state should once again limit its
role in the economy by selling off national industries and promoting free trade.
Supporters of this approach, which influenced the policies of international financial
institutions and governments throughout the world, maintained that free markets
would generate continued prosperity.
Opponents of neoliberalism have argued that the theory overlooks too many of the
negative social and political consequences of free markets, including the creation of
large disparities of wealth and damage to the environment. In the 1990s one focal
point of debate was the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which
created a free-trade zone between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. Since it
went into effect in 1994, the agreement has generated a good deal of controversy
about whether it has created or eliminated jobs in the United States and Canada and
about whether it has helped or harmed the environment, labour conditions, and
local cultures in Mexico.
Comparative political economy studies interactions between the state, markets, and
society, both national and international. Both empiricaland normative, it employs
sophisticated analytic tools and methodologies in its investigations. Rational-choice
theorists, for example, analyze individual behaviour and even the policies of states in
terms of maximizing benefits and minimizing costs, and public-choice theorists focus
on how policy choices are shaped or constrained by incentives built into the routines
of public and private organizations. Modeling techniques adapted
from econometrics are often applied to many different political economic questions.
Political economists attempting to understand domestic macroeconomic policy often
study the influence of political institutions (e.g., legislatures, executives, and
judiciaries) and the implementation of public policy by bureaucratic agencies. The
influence of political and societal actors (e.g., interest groups, political parties,
churches, elections, and the media) and ideologies (e.g., democracy, fascism, or
communism) also is gauged. Comparative analysis also considers the extent to which
international political and economic conditions increasingly blur the line between
domestic and foreign policies in different countries. For example, in many countries
trade policy no longer reflects strictly domestic objectives but also takes into account
the trade policies of other governments and the directives of international financial
institutions.
Many sociologists focus on the impact that policies have on the public and the extent
of public support that particular policies enjoy. Likewise, sociologists and some
political scientists also are interested in the extent to which policies are generated
primarily from above by elites or from below by the public. One such study is so-
called “critical political economy,” which is rooted in interpretations of the writing of
Marx. For many Marxists (and contemporary adherents of varying strands of Marxist
thought), government efforts to manage different parts of the economy are presumed
to favour the moral order of bourgeois values. As in the case of tax policy, for
example, government policies are assumed to support the interests of the rich or elites
over those of the masses.
Ultimately, comparative analysts may ask why countries in certain areas of the world
play a particularly large role in the international economy. They also examine why
“corporatist” partnerships between the state, industry, and labour formed in some
states and not in others, why there are major differences in labour and management
relations in the more-industrialized countries, what kinds of political and economic
structures different countries employ to help their societies adjust to the effects of
integration and globalization, and what kinds of institutions in developing countries
advance or retard the development process. Comparative political economists also
have investigated why some developing countries in Southeast Asia were relatively
successful at generating economic growth whereas most African countries were not.
International Political Economy
International political economy studies problems that arise from or are affected by the
interaction of international politics, international economics, and different social
systems (e.g., capitalism and socialism) and societal groups (e.g., farmers at the local
level, different ethnic groups in a country, immigrants in a region such as
the European Union, and the poor who exist transnationally in all countries). It
explores a set of related questions (“problematique”) that arise from issues such as
international trade, international finance, relations between wealthier and poorer
countries, the role of multinational corporations, and the problems of hegemony (the
dominance, either physical or cultural, of one country over part or all of the world),
along with the consequences of economic globalization.
Analytic approaches to international political economy tend to vary with the problem
being examined. Issues can be viewed from several different theoretical perspectives,
including the mercantilist, liberal, and structuralist (Marxist or neo-Marxist)
perspectives. Mercantilists are closely related to realists, focusing on competing
interests and capabilities of nation-states in a competitive struggle to achieve power
and security. Liberals are optimistic about the ability of humans and states to construct
peaceful relations and world order. Economic liberals, in particular, would limit the
role of the state in the economy in order to let market forces decide political and social
outcomes. Structuralist ideas are rooted in Marxist analysis and focus on how the
dominant economic structures of society affect (i.e., exploit) class interests and
relations. Each of these perspectives is often applied to problems at several different
levels of analysis that point to complex root causes of conflict traced to human
nature (the individual level), national interests (the national level), and the structure of
the international system (which lacks a single sovereign to prevent war). For example,
analysis of U.S. policy regarding migrants from Mexico must take into consideration
patterns of trade and investment between the two countries and the domestic interests
on both sides of the border. Similarly, domestic and international interests are linked
by trade, finance, and other factors in the case of financial crises in developing
countries such as Thailand and Argentina. The distinction between foreign and
domestic becomes as uncertain as the distinction between economics and politics in a
world where foreign economic crises affect domestic political and economic interests
through trade and financial linkages or through changes in security arrangements or
migrant flows.
Contemporary international political economy appeared as a subfield of the study of
international relations during the era of Cold War rivalry between the Soviet
Union and the United States (1945–91). Analyses initially focused largely on
international security but later came to include economic security and the role of
market actors—including multinational corporations, international banks, cartels (e.g.,
OPEC), and international organizations (e.g., the IMF)—in national and international
security strategies. International political economy grew in importance as a result of
various dramatic international economic events, such as the collapse of the Bretton
Woods international monetary system in 1971 and the oil crisis of 1973–74.
During the early period of the Cold War, political scientists emphasized the realist,
or power politics, dimension of U.S.–Soviet relations, while economists tended to
focus on the Bretton Woods system of the international economy—that is, the
institutions and rules that beginning in 1945 governed much of the international
economy. During the Vietnam War, however, a growing decrease in the value of the
U.S. dollar and large deficits for the United States in its balance of trade and payments
weakened the ability of the United States to conduct and pay for the war, which
thereby undermined its relationship to its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies.
During the OPEC oil crisis, the realist-oriented U.S. Secretary of State Henry A.
Kissinger found himself unable to understand the issues without the assistance of an
economist. These events led to a search for a multidisciplinary approach or outlook
that borrowed different theories, concepts, and ideas from political science and
international relations—as well as from economics and sociology—to explain a
variety of complicated international problems and issues. It did not so much result in
the development of a new school of political economy as emphasize the continued
relevance of the older, more-integrated type of analysis, which explicitly sought to
trace the connections between political and economic factors.
Following the end of the Cold War, international political economy became focused
on issues raised by economic globalization, including the viability of the state in an
increasingly globalized international economy, the role of multinational corporations
in generating conflict as well as growth in the “new global economy,” and various
problems related to equity, justice, and fairness (e.g., low wage rates in developing
countries and the dependency of these countries on markets in wealthier countries). In
the 1950s and ’60s, American economist W.W. Rostow and other experts on Western
economic development made popular the argument that after a period of tension,
disorder, and even chaos within a developing country that had been exposed to the
West, that country would eventually “take off,” and development would occur. In the
late 1960s and continuing into the 1990s, many development experts from a
structuralist point of view (including many Marxists and neo-Marxists) posited a
variety of explanations as to why many developing countries did not seem to develop
or change much. For example, the German-born economist Andre Gunder Frank made
popular the idea that, when developing countries connect to the West, they become
underdeveloped. Social theorist and economist Immanuel Wallerstein, whose works
have made a lasting impact on the study of the historical development of the world
capitalist system, argued that development does occur but only for a small number of
semiperipheral states and not for those peripheral states that remain the providers of
natural resources and raw materials to the developed industrial core states.
Such themes were evident in the 1990s and the early 21st century when a number of
politically and economically powerful (and mostly Western) multinational
corporations were accused of exploiting women and children in unsanitary and unsafe
working conditions in their factories in developing countries. These cases and others
like them were seen by some structuralists as evidence of a “race to the bottom” in
which, in order to attract investment by international businesses, many developing
countries relaxed or eliminated worker-protection laws and environmental standards.
David N. BalaamMichael A. Veseth
LEARN MORE in these related articles:

economics: Construction of a system

…to the developing science of political economy. Ricardo invented the concept of the economic
model—a tightly knit logical apparatus consisting of a few strategic variables—that was capable of
yielding, after some manipulation and the addition of a few empirically observable extras, results of
enormous practical import. At the heart of…

READ MORE


international relations: International political economy

Nothing is more illustrative of the inherently interdisciplinary nature of international relations inquiry
than the nexus between economic and political factors. Although politics and economics have been
studied separately for analytic purposes and as academic disciplines, and although each has its own
paradigms,…

READ MORE


John Stuart Mill: Public life and writing

…in his development as a political economist. In 1844 he published the Essays on Some Unsettled
Questions of Political Economy, which he had written several years earlier, and four out of five of
these essays are solutions of perplexing technical problems—the distribution of the gains of
international commerce, the influence…

READ MORE


political science

Political science, the systematic study of governance by the application of empirical and generally
scientific methods of analysis. As traditionally defined and studied, political science examines the
state and its organs and institutions. The contemporary discipline, however, is considerably broader
than this, encompassing studies of all the societal, cultural, and

READ MORE

sociology

Sociology, a social science that studies human societies, their interactions, and the processes that
preserve and change them. It does this by examining the dynamics of constituent parts of societies
such as institutions, communities, populations, and gender, racial, or age groups. Sociology also
studies social status or stratification, social movements,

READ MORE
MORE ABOUT Political economy
3 REFERENCES FOUND IN BRITANNICA ARTICLES
Assorted References

 international relations studies

 In international relations: International
political economy
 Mill
 In John Stuart Mill: Public life and writing
 Ricardo
 In economics: Construction of a system
ADDITIONAL READING
EXTERNAL WEBSITES
ARTICLE HISTORY
ARTICLE CONTRIBUTORS
FEEDBACK
Corrections? Updates? Help us improve this article!Contact our editors with your feedback.
RELATED TOPICS
 Economic openness
 John Stuart Mill
 William Stanley Jevons
 Economics
 Social science
 Behavioral science
 Humanities
 Biology
 Labour economics
 Defense economics

No.2
Political economy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Not to be confused with Economic policy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_economy

Political economy is the study of production and trade and their relations
with law, custom and government as well as with the distribution of national income and wealth.
Political economy as a discipline originated in moral philosophy in the 18th century and sought
to explore the administration of states' wealth, with "political" signifying the Greek
word polity and "economy" signifying the Greek word "okonomie" or "household management".
The earliest works of political economy are most often attributed to British scholars like Adam
Smith, Thomas Malthus and David Ricardo, although the case is sometimes made that the still
earlier works of the French physiocrats constitute the true beginnings of the discipline.
In the late 19th century, the term "economics" gradually began to replace the term "political
economy" with the rise of mathematical modelling coinciding with the publication of an
influential textbook by Alfred Marshall in 1890.[1] Earlier, William Stanley Jevons, a proponent
of mathematical methods applied to the subject, advocated economics for brevity and with the
hope of the term becoming "the recognised name of a science".[2][3] Citation measurement
metrics from Google Ngram Viewer indicate that use of the term "economics" began to
overshadow "political economy" around roughly 1910, becoming the preferred term for the
discipline by 1920.[4]Today, the term "economics" usually refers to the narrow study of the
economy absent other political and social considerations while the term "political economy"
represents a distinct and competing approach.
Political economy, where it is not used as a synonym for economics, may refer to very different
things. From an academic standpoint, the term may reference Marxian analysis, applied public
choice approaches emanating from the Chicago school and the Virginia school. In common
parlance, "political economy" may simply refer to the advice given by economists to the
government or public on general economic policy or on specific economic proposals developed
by political scientists.[3] A rapidly growing mainstream literature from the 1970s has expanded
beyond the model of economic policy in which planners maximize utility of a representative
individual toward examining how political forces affect the choice of economic policies,
especially as to distributional conflicts and political institutions.[5] It is available as a stand-alone
area of study in certain colleges and universities.

Contents
[hide]

 1Etymology
 2Current approaches
 3Related disciplines
 4See also
 5Notes
 6References
 7Journals
 8External links

Etymology[edit]
Originally, political economy meant the study of the conditions under which production or
consumption within limited parameters was organized in nation-states. In that way, political
economy expanded the emphasis of economics, which comes from the Greek oikos(meaning
"home") and nomos (meaning "law" or "order"). Political economy was thus meant to express the
laws of production of wealth at the state level, just as economics was the ordering of the home.
The phrase économie politique (translated in English as "political economy") first appeared in
France in 1615 with the well-known book by Antoine de Montchrétien, Traité de l’economie
politique. The French physiocrats were the first exponents of political economy, although the
intellectual responses of Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo, Henry George and Karl
Marx to the physiocrats generally receives much greater attention.[6] The world's first
professorship in political economy was established in 1754 at the University of Naples Federico
II in southern Italy. The Neapolitan philosopher Antonio Genovesi was the first tenured
professor. In 1763, Joseph von Sonnenfels was appointed a Political Economy chair at
the University of Vienna, Austria. Thomas Malthus, in 1805, became England's first professor of
political economy, at the East India Company College, Haileybury, Hertfordshire. In its
contemporary meaning, political economy refers to different yet related approaches to studying
economic and related behaviours, ranging from the combination of economics with other fields
to the use of different, fundamental assumptions that challenge earlier economic assumptions:

Current approaches[edit]

Robert Keohane, international relations theorist

Political economy most commonly refers to interdisciplinary studies drawing
upon economics, sociology and political science in explaining how political institutions, the
political environment, and the economic system—capitalist, socialist, communist, or mixed—
influence each other.[7] The Journal of Economic Literature classification codes associate
political economy with three sub-areas: (1) the role of government and/or class and power
relationships in resource allocation for each type of economic system;[8] (2) international political
economy, which studies the economic impacts of international relations;[9] and (3) economic
models of political or exploitative class processes.[10] Much of the political economy approach is
derived from public choice theory on the one hand and radical political economics on the other
hand, both dating from the 1960s.
Public choice theory is a microfoundations theory that is closely intertwined with political
economy. Both approaches model voters, politicians and bureaucrats as behaving in mainly self-
interested ways, in contrast to a view, ascribed to earlier mainstream economists, of government
officials trying to maximize individual utilities from some kind of social welfare function.[11] As
such, economists and political scientists often associate political economy with approaches
using rational-choice assumptions,[12] especially in game theory[13] and in examining phenomena
beyond economics' standard remit, such as government failure and complex decision making in
which context the term "positive political economy" is common.[14] Other "traditional" topics
include analysis of such public policy issues as economic regulation,[15] monopoly, rent-
seeking, market protection,[16] institutional corruption[17] and distributional politics.[18] Empirical
analysis includes the influence of elections on the choice of economic policy, determinants
and forecasting models of electoral outcomes, the political business cycles,[19] central-bank
independence and the politics of excessive deficits.[20]
A more recent focus has been on modeling economic policy and political institutions as to
interactions between agents and economic and political institutions,[21] including the seeming
discrepancy of economic policy and economist's recommendations through the lens
of transaction costs.[22] From the mid-1990s, the field has expanded, in part aided by new cross-
national data sets that allow tests of hypotheses on comparative economic systems and
institutions.[23] Topics have included the breakup of nations,[24] the origins and rate of change of
political institutions in relation to economic growth,[25] development,[26] financial markets and
regulation,[27] backwardness,[28] reform[29] and transition economies,[30] the role of culture,
ethnicity and gender in explaining economic outcomes,[5] macroeconomic
policy,[31] the environment,[32] fairness[33] and the relation of constitutionsto economic policy,
theoretical[34] and empirical.[35]
Other important landmarks in the development of political economy include:

 New political economy which may treat economic ideologies as the phenomenon to
explain, per the traditions of Marxian political economy. Thus, Charles S. Maier suggests
that a political economy approach "interrogates economic doctrines to disclose their
sociological and political premises.... in sum, [it] regards economic ideas and behavior
not as frameworks for analysis, but as beliefs and actions that must themselves be
explained".[36] This approach informs Andrew Gamble's The Free Economy and the
Strong State(Palgrave Macmillan, 1988), and Colin Hay's The Political Economy of New
Labour (Manchester University Press, 1999). It also informs much work published
in New Political Economy, an international journal founded by Sheffield University
scholars in 1996.[37]
 International political economy (IPE) an interdisciplinary field comprising approaches to
the actions of various actors. In the United States, these approaches are associated with
the journal International Organization, which in the 1970s became the leading journal of
IPE under the editorship of Robert Keohane, Peter J. Katzenstein and Stephen Krasner.
They are also associated with the journal The Review of International Political Economy.
There also is a more critical school of IPE, inspired by thinkers such as Antonio
Gramsciand Karl Polanyi; two major figures are Matthew Watson and Robert W. Cox.[38]
 The use of a political economy approach by anthropologists, sociologists, and
geographers used in reference to the regimes of politics or economic values that emerge
primarily at the level of states or regional governance, but also within smaller social
groups and social networks. Because these regimes influence and are influenced by the
organization of both social and economic capital, the analysis of dimensions lacking a
standard economic value (e.g. the political economy of language, of gender, or of
religion) often draws on concepts used in Marxian critiques of capital. Such approaches
expand on neo-Marxian scholarship related
to development and underdevelopment postulated by André Gunder Frank and Immanuel
Wallerstein.
 Historians have employed political economy to explore the ways in the past that persons
and groups with common economic interests have used politics to effect changes
beneficial to their interests.[39]
 Political economy and law is a recent attempt within legal scholarship to engage
explicitly with political economy literature. In the 1920s and 1930s, legal
realists (e.g. Robert Hale) and intellectuals (e.g. John Commons) engaged themes related
to political economy. In the second half of the 20th century, lawyers associated with the
Chicago School incorporated certain intellectual traditions from economics. However,
since the crisis in 2007 legal scholars especially related to international law, have turned
to more explicitly engage with the debates, methodology and various themes within
political economy texts.[40][41]
 Thomas Piketty's approach and call to action which advocated for the re-introduction of
political consideration and political science knowledge more generally into the discipline
of economics as a way of improving the robustness of the discipline and remedying its
shortcomings, which had become clear following the 2008 financial crisis.[42]

Related disciplines[edit]
Because political economy is not a unified discipline, there are studies using the term that
overlap in subject matter, but have radically different perspectives:[43]

 Politics studies power relations and their relationship to achieving desired ends
 Philosophy rigorously assesses and studies a set of beliefs and their applicability to
reality
 Economics studies the distribution of resources so that the material wants of a society are
satisfied; enhance societal well-being
 Sociology studies the effects of persons' involvement in society as members of groups
and how that changes their ability to function. Many sociologists start from a perspective
of production-determining relation from Karl Marx. Marx's theories on the subject of
political economy are contained in his book Das Kapital.
 Anthropology studies political economy by investigating regimes of political and
economic value that condition tacit aspects of sociocultural practices (e.g. the pejorative
use of pseudo-Spanish expressions in the U.S. entertainment media) by means of broader
historical, political and sociological processes. Analyses of structural features of
transnational processes focus on the interactions between the world capitalist system and
local cultures.
 Archaeology attempts to reconstruct past political economies by examining the material
evidence for administrative strategies to control and mobilize resources.[44] This evidence
may include architecture, animal remains, evidence for craft workshops, evidence for
feasting and ritual, evidence for the import or export of prestige goods, or evidence for
food storage.
 Psychology is the fulcrum on which political economy exerts its force in studying
decision making (not only in prices), but as the field of study whose assumptions model
political economy.
 History documents change, often using it to argue political economy; some historical
works take political economy as the narrative's frame.
 Ecology deals with political economy because human activity has the greatest effect upon
the environment, its central concern being the environment's suitability for human
activity. The ecological effects of economic activity spur research upon changing market
economy incentives. Additionally and more recently, ecological theory has been used to
examine economic systems as similar systems of interacting species (e.g., firms).[45]
 Cultural studies examines social class, production, labor, race, gender and sex.
 Communications examines the institutional aspects of media and telecommuncation
systems. As the area of study focusing on aspects of human communication, it pays
particular attention to the relationships between owners, labor, consumers, advertisers,
structures of production and the state and the power relationships embedded in these
relationships.

See also[edit]

 Economic sociology
 Economic study of collective action
 Constitutional economics
 European Association for Evolutionary Political Economy (EAEPE)
 Economic ideology
 Institutional economics
 Land value tax
 Law of rent
 Important publications in political economy
 Perspectives on Capitalism
 Social model
 Social capital

Notes[edit]

1. Jump up^ Marshall, Alfred. (1890) Principles of Economics.

2. Jump up^ Jevons, W. Stanley. The Theory of Political Economy, 1879, 2nd ed. p. xiv.
3. ^ Jump up to:a b Groenwegen, Peter. (1987 [2008]). "'political economy' and
'economics'", The New Palgrave: A Dictionary of Economics, v. 3, pp. 905-06.
[Pp. 904–07.]
4. Jump up^ Mark Robbins (2016) "Why we need political economy," Policy Options, [1]
5. ^ Jump up to:a b Alesina, Alberto F. (2007:3) "Political Economy," NBER Reporter, pp.
1-5. Abstract-linked-footnotes version.
6. Jump up^ "What is Political Economy?". Political Economy, Athabasca University.
Retrieved 2017-06-15.
7. Jump up^ Weingast, Barry R., and Donald Wittman, ed., 2008. The Oxford Handbook of
Political Economy. Oxford UP. Description and preview.
8. Jump up^ At JEL: P as in JEL Classification Codes Guide, drilled to at each economic-
system link.
For example:
• Brandt, Loren, and Thomas G. Rawski (2008). "Chinese economic
 reforms," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Helsley, Robert W. (2008). "urban political economy," The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
9. Jump up^ At JEL: F5 as drilled to in JEL Classification Codes Guide.
For example:
• Gilpin, Robert (2001), Global Political Economy: Understanding the
International Economic Order, Princeton. Description and ch. 1, " The New
Global Economic Order" link.
• Mitra, Devashish (2008). "trade policy, political economy of," The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
10. Jump up^ At JEL: D72 and JEL: D74 with context for its usage in JEL Classification
Codes Guide, drilled to at JEL: D7.
11. Jump up^ • Tullock, Gordon ([1987] 2008). "public choice," The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics. Abstract.
• Arrow, Kenneth J. (1963). Social Choice and Individual Values, 2nd ed., ch.
VIII, sect. 2, The Social Decision Process, pp. 106-08.
12. Jump up^ Lohmann, Susanne (2008). "rational choice and political science," The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
13. Jump up^ • Shubik, Martin (1981). "Game Theory Models and Methods in Political
Economy," in K. Arrow and M. Intriligator, ed., Handbook of Mathematical
Economics, Elsevier, v. 1, pp. 285-330.
• _____ (1984). A Game-Theoretic Approach to Political Economy. MIT
Press. Description Archived 2011-06-29 at the Wayback Machine. and
review extract.
• _____ (1999). Political Economy, Oligopoly and Experimental Games: The
Selected Essays of Martin Shubik, v. 1, Edward Elgar. Description and contents
of Part I, Political Economy.
• Peter C. Ordeshook (1990). "The Emerging Discipline of Political Economy,"
ch. 1 in Perspectives on Positive Political Economy, Cambridge, pp. 9-30.
• _____ (1986). Game Theory and Political Theory,
Cambridge. Description and preview.
14. Jump up^ Alt, James E.; Shepsle, Kenneth (eds.) (1990), Perspectives on Positive
Political Economy(Cambridge [UK]; New York: Cambridge University Press).
Description and content linksand preview.
15. Jump up^ Rose, N. L. (2001). "Regulation, Political Economy of," International
Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, pp. 12967–12970. Abstract.
16. Jump up^ Krueger, Anne O. (1974). "The Political Economy of the Rent-Seeking
Society," American Economic Review, 64(3), p. 291–303.
17. Jump up^ • Bose, Niloy. "corruption and economic growth," The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics Online, 2nd Edition, 2010. Abstract.
• Rose-Ackerman, Susan (2008). "bribery," The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
18. Jump up^ • Becker, Gary S. (1983). "A Theory of Competition among Pressure Groups
for Political Influence," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(3), pp. 371-400.
• Weingast, Barry R., Kenneth A. Shepsle, and Christopher Johnsen (1981).
"The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to
 Distributive Politics," Journal of Political Economy, 89(4), pp. 642-664.
• Breyer, Friedrich (1994). "The Political Economy of Intergenerational
Redistribution," European Journal of Political Economy, 10(1), pp. 61–
84. Abstract.
• Williamson, Oliver E. (1995). "The Politics and Economics of Redistribution
and Inefficiency," Greek Economic Review, December, 17, pp. 115-136, reprinted
in Williamson (1996), The Mechanisms of Governance, Oxford University
Press, ch. 8, pp. 195-218.
• Krusell, Per, and José-Víctor Ríos-Rull (1999). "On the Size of U.S.
Government: Political Economy in the Neoclassical Growth Model," American
Economic Review, 89(5), pp. 1156-1181.
• Galasso, Vincenzo, and Paola Profeta (2002). "The Political Economy of
Social Security: A Survey," European Journal of Political Economy, 18(1), pp. 1–
29.
19. Jump up^ • Drazen, Allan (2008). "Political business cycles," The New Palgrave
Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Nordhaus, William D. (1989). "Alternative Approaches to the Political
Business Cycle," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, (2), pp. 1-68.
20. Jump up^ • Buchanan, James M. (2008). "public debt," The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Alesina, Alberto, and Roberto Perotti (1995). "The Political Economy of
Budget Deficits," IMF Staff Papers, 42(1), pp. 1-31.
21. Jump up^ • Timothy, Besley (2007). Principled Agents?: The Political Economy of
Good Government, Oxford. Description.
• _____ and Torsten Persson (2008). "political institutions, economic
approaches to," The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd
Edition. Abstract.
• North, Douglass C. (1986). "The New Institutional Economics," Journal of
Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 142(1), pp. 230-237.
• _____ (1990). Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance,
in the Political Economy of Institutions and Decisions series.
Cambridge. Description and preview.
• Ostrom, Elinor (1990). Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions
for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press. Description and
preview links.ISBN 9780521405997.
• _____ (2010). "Beyond Markets and States: Polycentric Governance of
Complex Economic Systems," American Economic Review, 100(3), pp. 641-
72 Archived 2013-11-05 at the Wayback Machine..
22. Jump up^ Dixit, Avinash (1996). The Making of Economic Policy: A Transaction Cost
Politics Perspective. MIT Press. Description and chapter-preview links. Review-
excerpt link.
23. Jump up^ Beck, Thorsten et al. (2001). "New Tools in Comparative Political Economy:
The Database of Political Institutions," World Bank Economic Review,15(1),
pp. 165-176.
24. Jump up^ Bolton, Patrick, and Gérard Roland (1997). "The Breakup of Nations: A
Political Economy Analysis," Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(4), pp. 1057-
1090.
25. Jump up^ Alesina, Alberto, and Roberto Perotti (1994). "The Political Economy of
Growth: A Critical Survey of the Recent Literature," World Bank Economic
Review, 8(3), pp. 351-371.
26. Jump up^ Keefer, Philip (2004). "What Does Political Economy Tell Us about
Economic Development and Vice Versa?" Annual Review of Political Science, 7,
pp. 247–72. PDF.
27. Jump up^ Perotti, Enrico (2014). "The Political Economy of Finance", in "Capitalism
and Society" Vol. 9, No. 1, Article 1 [2]
28. Jump up^ Acemoglu, Daron, and James A. Robinson (2006). "Economic Backwardness
in Political Perspective," American Political Science Review, 100(1), pp. 115-131.
29. Jump up^ • Mukand, Sharun W. (2008). "policy reform, political economy of," The New
Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, 2nd Edition. Abstract.
• Sturzenegger, Federico, and Mariano Tommasi (1998). The Polítical Economy
of Reform, MIT Press. Description Archived 2012-10-11 at the Wayback
Machine. and chapter-preview links.
30. Jump up^ • Roland, Gérard (2002), "The Political Economy of Transition," Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 16(1), pp. 29-50.
• _____ (2000). Transition and Economics: Politics, Markets, and Firms, MIT
Press. Description and preview.
• Manor, James (1999). The Political Economy of Democratic Decentralization,
The World Bank. ISBN 9780821344705. Description.
31. Jump up^ Drazen, Allan (2000). Political Economy in Macroeconomics,
Princeton. Description & ch. 1-preview link., and review extract.
32. Jump up^ • Dietz, Simon, Jonathan Michie, and Christine Oughton (2011). Political
Economy of the Environment An Interdisciplinary Approach,
Routledge. Description and preview.
• Banzhaf, H. Spencer, ed. (2012). The Political Economy of Environmental
JusticeStanford U.P. Description and contents links.
• Gleeson, Brendan, and Nicholas Low (1998). Justice, Society and Nature An
Exploration of Political Ecology, Routledge. Description and preview.
• John S. Dryzek, 2000. Rational Ecology: Environment and Political Economy,
Blackburn Press. B&N description.
• Barry, John 2001. "Justice, Nature and Political Economy," Economy and
Society, 30(3), pp. 381–394.
• Boyce, James K. (2002). The Political Economy of the Environment, Edward
Elgar. Description.
33. Jump up^ • Zajac, Edward E. (1996). Political Economy of Fairness, MIT
Press Description and chapter-preview links.
• Thurow, Lester C. (1980). The Zero-sum Society: Distribution and the
Possibilities For Economic Change, Penguin. Description and preview.
34. Jump up^ • Persson, Torsten, and Guido Tabellini (2000). Political Economics:
Explaining Economic Policy, MIT Press. Review extract, description and chapter-
preview links.
 • Laffont, Jean-Jacques (2000). Incentives and Political Economy,
Oxford. Description.
• Acemoglu, Daron (2003). "Why Not a Political Coase Theorem? Social
Conflict, Commitment, and Politics," Journal of Comparative Economics, 31(4),
pp. 620–652.
35. Jump up^ Persson, Torsten, and Guido Tabellini (2003). The Economic Effects Of
Constitutions, Munich Lectures in Economics. MIT
Press. Description and preview, and review extract.
36. Jump up^ Mayer, Charles S. (1987). In Search of Stability: Explorations in Historical
Political Economy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp.3–
6. Description and scrollable preview. Cambridge.
37. Jump up^ cf: Baker, David (2006). "The political economy of fascism: Myth or reality,
or myth and reality?", New Political Economy, 11(2), pp. 227–250.
38. Jump up^ Cohen, Benjamin J. "The transatlantic divide: Why are American and British
IPE so different?", Review of International Political Economy, Vol. 14, No. 2,
May 2007.
39. Jump up^ McCoy, Drew R. "The Elusive Republic: Political Economy in Jeffersonian
America", Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina.
40. Jump up^ Kennedy, David (2013). "Law and the Political Economy of the
World" (PDF). Leiden Journal of International Law. Retrieved December
24, 2015.
41. Jump up^ Haskell, John D. (2015). Research Handbook on Political Economy and Law.
Edward Elgar. ISBN 978 1 78100 534 7.
42. Jump up^ Capital in the Twenty-First Century, Harvard University Press,
2014, ISBN 978-0674430006
43. Jump up^ "political economy". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-06-15.
44. Jump up^ Hirth, Kenneth G. 1996. Political Economy and Archaeology: Perspectives on
Exchange and Production. Journal of Archaeological Research, 4(3):203-239.
45. Jump up^ May, Robert M.; Levin, Simon A.; Sugihara, George (February 21,
2008). "Ecology for bankers". Nature (451): 893-895. doi:10.1038/451893a.
Retrieved 14 March 2018.

References[edit]

 Baran, Paul A. (1957). The Political Economy of Growth. Monthly Review Press, New
York. Review extrract.
 Commons, John R. (1934 [1986]). Institutional Economics: Its Place in Political
Economy, Macmillan. Description and preview.
 Leroux, Robert (2011), Political Economy and Liberalism in France : The Contributions
of Frédéric Bastiat, London, Routledge.
 Maggi, Giovanni, and Andrés Rodríguez-Clare (2007). "A Political-Economy Theory of
Trade Agreements," American Economic Review, 97(4), pp. 1374-1406.
 O'Hara, Phillip Anthony, ed. (1999). Encyclopedia of Political Economy, 2 v. Routledge.
2003 review links.
 Pressman, Steven, Interactions in Political Economy: Malvern After Ten
Years Routledge, 1996
 Rausser, Gordon, Swinnen, Johan, and Zusman, Pinhas (2011). Political Power and
Economic Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
 Winch, Donald (1996). Riches and Poverty : An Intellectual History of Political Economy
in Britain, 1750–1834 Cambridge: Cambridge U.P.
 Winch, Donald (1973). "The Emergence of Economics as a Science, 1750–1870." In: The
Fontana Economic History of Europe, Vol. 3. London: Collins/Fontana.

Journals[edit]

 Constitutional Political Economy

 Economics & Politics. ISSN 0954-1985
 European Journal of Political Economy.
 Latin American Perspectives
 International Journal of Political Economy
 Journal of Australian Political Economy. ISSN 0156-5826
 New Political Economy
 Public Choice.
 Studies in Political Economy

External links[edit]

Wikibooks has a
book on the topic
of: Political
Economy

Wikisource has the text of

the 1905 New International
Encyclopedia article Political
Economy.

 NBER (U.S.) "Political Economy" working-paper abstract links.

 VoxEU.org (Europe) "Politics and economics" article links.
 List, Friedrich. National System of Political Economy
 Carey, Henry C. Harmony of Interests - compares American and British systems[clarification
needed]
of political economy
 International Political Economy at Jacobs University Bremen
 Global Political Economy at City University London
 Centre for Global Political Economy at the University of Sussex, UK
 O'Neil Center for Global Markets and Freedom at the SMU Cox School of Business
Dallas, TX USA
 Institute for the study of Political Economy and Law (IPEL) at the International
University College of Turin (IUC), Italy
 European Centre for International Political Economy
 Institute for Political Economy and Development (IPEAD)

No.3

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/courses/sgabriel/political_economy_main.htm

Economics 105 Spring 2002 MW 2:30

Satyananda Gabriel
Associate Professor Economics
Mount Holyoke College
Email: sgabriel@mtholyoke.edu

Teaching Assistants:

Michael Coles: e-mail: worcestermichael@hotmail.com

Michael's office hours are Monday 4-5 in Thompson 628.
Michael's discussion sections are at 9:05 and 10:10 in Dickinson 206.

Merrilee Mardon: e-mail: mardon@econs.umass.edu

Merrilee's office hours are Wednesday 1:00 -2:00 and TBA (to be arranged).
Merrilee's sections are at 11:15 in Dickinson 206 and at 12:20 in Dickinson 109.
Course Description:
Introduction to political economy for majors and nonmajors.

Political economy is the study of the role of economic processes in shaping society
and history. Political economy (particularly when the word "radical" is added as an
adjective) has come to be closely associated with the work of economists who adopted
key concepts developed by Marx, in particular his focus on class processes or
relationships, but who rejected the economic determinism of orthodox versions of
Marxian theory. Thus, political economy makes extensive and intensive use of class
analysis in making sense of society and history, but does so in the context of political,
cultural, and environmental processes, as well as other economic processes.

Nevertheless, most of the writings in political economy, including the work of Marx,
have been concerned specifically with understanding the role of capitalism(as the
prevalence of a specific class arrangement or set of class processes) in shaping society
and history. This course introduces students to a post-structuralistapproach to
political economy, an approach that de-centers political economy from this narrow
focus on capitalism. Post-structuralist political economy provides an alternative to
orthodox (neoclassical) economic theory (taught in its purest form in the introductory
course in microeconomics), as well as to more traditional (economic determinist)
versions of Marxian (or Marxian-influenced) political economy.

In the architecture of this new form of political economy, all social processes are
significant determinants of economic outcomes, the behavior of economic agents and
institutions, and the direction of historical change. In other words, the post-
structuralist approach studied in this course rejects economic determinism in favor of
a more open-minded approach to social causality and the creation of history
(overdetermination). For instance, unlike orthodox economic theory or economic
determinist versions of Marxian theory, the post-structuralist approach would view
cultural processes as no less significant than economic processes in shaping
investment decisions. The same could be said for political or environmental
processes. This point, among others, will be made by essays and papers read during
the semester.

This post-structuralist political economy, like a number of other versions of (radical)

political economy, is, in part, a product of debates over the theoretical contributions of
Marx. This has implications for the concepts that are highlighted within social
analysis. In particular, it implies a concern with conducting class analysis. Thus,
students in the course will learn the language of class analysis and study a range of
different applications of class analysis.
Primary Course Objective: At the end of the semester students should be comfortable
with the language and mode of analysis of post-structuralist political economy and be
well positioned for later comparison of this approach to alternative economic
theories. Thus, each student should achieve the following objectives: i) understand
the difference between the orthodox determinist/reductionist approaches to
economic and social analysis and an overdeterminist approach; ii) understand
the basics of conducting class analysis; iii) understand the post-structuralist
Marxian definition of capitalism; iv) learn how to distinguish capitalist class
processes (the basis for capitalism) from non-capitalist (slave, feudal, ancient,
communal) class processes; and, perhaps most crucially, v) understand how the
material covered in the course relates to his or her life.

Required Text: Re/Presenting Class edited by J.K. Gibson-Graham, Stephen Resnick,

Richard Wolff (GGRW). This textbook is available at the annex or from online
booksellers. Other readings will be available online. Therefore, do notsimply print
a copy of this syllabus and think it is etched in stone. Instead, check this online
syllabus at the end of every week (online readings will be posted no later than Friday
noon if relevant for the following week).

Grading: Final grades will be based on two midterms and a final exam. The first
midterm contributes 25% to the semester grade, the second contributes 35%, and the
final examination 40%.

Calendar:

Readings denoted with an * require Adobe Acrobat.

January 30th: Introductory Lecture

February 4-6: J.K. Gibson-Graham, Stephen Resnick, and Richard Wolff, "Toward a
Poststructuralist Political Economy," pps. 1-22 of GGRW
Gabriel, Greater Caribbean: Crossing the Boundary, chapters 1 & 2*

February 11-13: Bruce Norton, "Reading Marx for Class," pps. 23-55 of GGRW
Gabriel, Capitalism, Socialism, and the 1949 Chinese Revolution

February 18: No class --- Note that Mount Holyoke College does not recognize the
power of UMass administrators to change days of the week, so the Monday class
scheduled on a Tuesday is cancelled.
February 20-25: J.K. Gibson-Graham and Phillip O'Neill, "Exploring a New Class
Politics of the Enterprise," pps. 56-80 of GGRW
Gabriel, Lecture Notes on Post-structuralist Theory of the Firm

February 25-March 4: Gabriel and Todorova, "Racism and Capitalist

Accumulation"*

March 6-11: Review and Summary of Introductory Concepts and Logic

Sample Questions for First Midterm

March 13 First Midterm

March 16-24: Spring Break

March 25-27: Andriana Vlachou, "Nature and Class: A Marxian Value Analysis,"
pps. 105-130 of GGRW

April 1-3: Carole Biewener, "The Promise of Finance: Banks and Community
Development," pps. 131-157 of GGRW
............Case Study: Belize Rural Women's Association
............Gabriel, Belize Rural Women's Association, Revolving Loan Fund,
............ & Women's Cooperatives

April 3-8: J.K. Gibson-Graham and David Ruccio, "After Development: Re-
imagining Economy and Class," pps. 158-181 of GGRW

April 8-10: Gabriel, "A Class Analysis of the Iranian Revolution of 1979," pps. 206-
226 of GGRW

April 15: Patriot's Day

Click Here for Study Questions for Midterm II

April 17 Second Midterm

April 22-24: Serap Kayatekin, "Sharecropping and Feudal Class Processes in the
Postbellum Mississippi Delta," pps. 227-246 of GGRW

April 29-May 1: Dean Saitta, "Communal Class Processes and Pre-Columbian Social
Dynamics," pps. 247-263 of GGRW
May 6-8: Gabriel, "Ambiguous Capital: The Success of China's New Capitalists"
Gabriel, "Ambiguous Capital II: Restructuring China's State-owned
Enterprises"

May 13-15: Stephen Resnick and Richard Wolff, "Struggles in the USSR:
Communisms Attempted and Undone," pps. 264-290 of GGRW

Click Here for Study Questions for Final Exam

Final Exams

Heterodox Economic Theory (essay in progress --- what is the difference between
political economy and heterodox economic theory?)