General characteristics of the classical school and stages of its development. General characteristics of Greek literature of the classical period (V -IV centuries

State educational institution of higher professional education

ALL-RUSSIAN CORRESPONDENCE FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC INSTITUTE branch of VZFEI in Omsk

Essay

on the history of economic doctrines on the topic:

Performed:

speciality

__________________________

Checked:

Shumilov A.I.

Omsk 2007

1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………… p.3

2. General characteristics of classical political economy……………….. p.4

2.1. Definition of classical political economy………………... p.4

2.2. Stages of development of classical political economy……………... p.6

3. The main representatives of classical political economy………………………. p.8

3.1. "Political Arithmetic" by William. Petty................................... p.8

3.2. Adam Smith: “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations”……………………………………………………………………………………….. p.9

3.3. David Ricardo: “Principles of Political Economy”………………….. p.12

3.4. Treatise on Political Economy by Jean Baptiste Say…………………. p.15

3.5. “An Essay on the Law of Population” by Thomas Robert Malthus......... p.17

4. Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………... p.19

5. List of references…………………………………………….. p.21

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

General characteristics of classical political economy

Definition of classical political economy

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

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

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

In fact, the principle of “complete laissez faire” became the main motto of a new direction of economic thought - classical political economy, and its representatives debunked mercantilism and the protectionist policies in the economy it promoted, putting forward an alternative concept of economic liberalism.

In modern foreign economic literature, while paying tribute to the achievements of classical political economy, they do not idealize them. At the same time, in the economic education system of most countries of the world, the identification of the “classical school” as the corresponding section of the course on the history of economic doctrines is carried out primarily from the point of view of the inherent works of its authors general characteristics and traits :

▪ emphasis on the analysis of problems of production and distribution of material goods;

▪ development and application of progressive methodological research techniques;

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

▪ all the classics interpreted value as a value determined by production costs;

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

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

▪ great emphasis on the study of “laws of motion”, i.e. patterns of trends, dynamics, capitalist economy.

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

Stages of development of classical political economy

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

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

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

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

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

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

The main representatives of classical political economy

"Political Arithmetic" by William Petty

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Labor theory of value

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

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

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

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

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

On the division of labor and exchange

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

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

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

The "invisible hand" of market forces

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

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

Two approaches to value creation

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

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

The principle of economic freedom

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

The role of the state, principles of taxation

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

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

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

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

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

David Ricardo: "Principles of Political Economy"

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

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

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

Theory of value - Ricardo's position

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

Theory of money

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

Income theory

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reproduction theory

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

The theory of "comparative costs"

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

The general meaning of this concept is that if the governments of different countries do not impose any restrictions on foreign trade with each other, the economy of each country begins to gradually specialize in the production of those goods that require less labor time to produce. Free trade allows countries to consume no less quantity of goods than before specialization, minimizing the labor time required to create a given volume of goods.

As a follower of Smith and Malthus, Ricardo made a significant contribution to the development and clarification of various specific problems of economic theory.

Jean Baptiste Say: "Treatise on Political Economy"

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

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

What is the source of value?

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

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

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

Theory of production factors

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

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

Say's Law of Markets

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

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

▪ general overproduction is impossible;

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

▪ imports are beneficial for the economy, since they are paid for by its products;

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

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

"An Essay on the Law of Population" by Thomas Robert Malthus

A representative of the classical school, the Englishman T. Malthus (1766-1834), made a bright, original contribution to economic science. His main work is “An Essay on the Law of Population” (1798).

Population theory

The most important contribution made by the representative of the classical school T. R. Malthus to economic science is his development of the “theory of population”, in which he linked economic and demographic factors. Moreover, in his formulation of this question, the dependence turns out to be two-way: just as the economy affects changes in population, so the size of the population affects the economy. For economic science, T. Malthus’s treatise is valuable for its analytical conclusions, which were subsequently used by other theorists of the classical and some other schools.

The English priest and economist T. Malthus in his work “Essay on the Law of Population” persistently convinced that the population is growing at too high a rate - in geometric progression, and the growth of food does not keep up with it, increasing only in arithmetic progression. The gap in the rate of population growth and the benefits of life is the cause of poverty; helping the needy and poor does not make sense: this will lead to an even greater demographic “explosion”.

Two provisions flowed from this concept:

1) The working population itself is to blame for its plight. It is impossible to correct the conditions of life, because it is impossible to correct, to “abolish” the laws of nature;

2) The fact that with an increase in living standards and improvement in material conditions, demographic processes also change and the birth rate is reduced is ignored. The main emphasis is on the need to reduce the birth rate.

According to Malthus, population growth is limited by only one thing - lack of food, fear of hunger. But practice tells a different story: an increase in living standards leads to a change in the demographic situation, a reduction in the birth rate, and conscious family planning.

conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

Merits of the classical school:

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

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

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

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

The main ideas of classical political economy are:

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

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

Every economic actor is fully aware of prices, profits, wages and rents in any market, both now and in the future.

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

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

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

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

The main factor in increasing wealth is capital accumulation.

Competition must be perfect and the economy free from excessive government intervention. In this case, the “invisible hand” of the market will ensure the optimal allocation of resources.

List of used literature

1. Dadalko V.A. World Economy: Textbook. allowance. – M.: “Urajay”, “Interpressservice”, 2001. -592 p.

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

3. Bartenev S.A. History of Economic Thought. – M.: Yurist, 2002. -456 p.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12.Kondratiev N.D. Favorite op. M.: Economics, 1993.

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

The classical school in economic theory originated in the last third of the 17th century, i.e. during the period of the dominance of late mercantilism, and dominated economic thought until the end of the 19th century, until it was replaced by new economic schools.

As always, the new economic school, which later received the name classical, arose as an opposition movement, opposing itself to the mercantilism that was dominant at that time. At the same time, of course, the new school sought to solve those questions that mercantilism could not answer, and to explore those phenomena that were ignored by it.

It is worth noting that the people who created the economic classics belonged to a different formation than the mercantilists. They were not practitioners of economics or government, but they were enlightened people, and the enlightened man of this time was a humanist. Therefore, the first representatives of the classical school raised those questions that the mercantilists ignored, because for mercantilism these questions were not significant. The first such question was the question What constitutes the wealth of a people?(Not the state, but the people!) And after this question was answered, new questions inevitably arose in order to answer which the classical school was forced to explore the sphere of production. But, having started research from the sphere of production, the classical school then returned to the analysis of the sphere of circulation, but from new positions, proposing new principles of pricing and a new explanation of the nature of money.

In the history of the classical economic school, four stages can be distinguished, which roughly correspond to the stages of development of the capitalist structure of society. The first period in the history of economic classics is the period before Adam Smith. In the history of economics and society, it corresponds to the period of the formation of capitalism, when entrepreneurship penetrates not only trade, but also industrial and agricultural production. At this time, entrepreneurs become an influential political force, and states refuse to interfere in the economy. Among the prominent economists of the first period of development of the classical school, we should mention William Petty, Pierre Boisguillebert, as well as representatives of the school of physiocrats F. Quesnay and A. Turgot.

The second period in the history of the classical school (the last third of the 18th century) is associated with the activities of one person - Adam Smith and his The Wealth of Nations, which became an economic bestseller.

The third period in the history of the classical economic school covers the first half of the 19th century. At this time, many economists tried to develop the ideas of A. Smith and build a logically complete theory of economics. Among these economists we should mention David Ricardo, Jean Baptiste Say, as well as T. Malthus, N. Senior and G. Carrie. And in the history of the economy, this period coincided with the heyday of pure capitalism, when capital actively penetrated into the sphere of production, which was expressed in the industrial revolution, which took place in the absence of a shortage of resources and labor, as well as in conditions of unsatisfied demand for industrial products.

The fourth stage in the history of the classical school coincided with the period of crisis of pure capitalism in the second half of the 19th century. At this time, it turned out that without government intervention, the economy becomes too susceptible to crises, and competition between entrepreneurs ends in the formation of monopolies. Moreover, during this period it turned out that free competition brings lower profits than policies of protectionism and restrictions on competition. And among the classical economists at this time we can mention J. S. Mill and K. Marx, who brought political economy to its logical conclusion (and to some extent to the point of absurdity.)

And at the end of the paragraph, let's talk about the main distinctive features of economic classics; about the basic principles on which the entire theory of political economy was built. Firstly, the classical school explored the sphere of production, making the sphere of circulation secondary. Using a logical apparatus that included the cause-and-effect method, deduction and induction, as well as scientific abstraction, the classics derived their economic laws from the laws of production, which were objective in nature. And since the laws of production were axioms for the classical school, the results obtained did not need experimental verification.

Secondly, the laws of pricing in the classical school followed from the laws of production, i.e. prices had a cost basis. Since prices in the market must inevitably be based on costs, any protectionism is an attempt to deviate the economy from an ideal state. Therefore, protectionism was perceived negatively by the classical school.

Fourthly, the classical economic school tried to comprehensively explore the problems of economic development and improving the well-being of the population. But at the same time, she did not have sufficient apparatus to study these problems and based her analysis on unproven laws, such as Say’s law.

Fifthly, the classical economic school came to the conclusion about the commodity nature of money, i.e. to the fact that money is a special commodity, spontaneously separated from the rest of the mass of goods. And money in classical political economy was assigned mainly the role of a means of circulation. The influence of the monetary sector of the economy on the real sector, which was actively studied by mercantilists, was neglected by the classics.

Introduction

This work characterizes the classical direction in the history of economic doctrines. It examines the following range of issues: how the term “classical political economy” is interpreted in economics; what stages does classical political economy cover in its development; what are the features of the subject and method of study of the “classical school”, as well as the main economic theories at the four stages of development of the classical school of political economy.

The history of economic teachings is an integral link in the cycle of general educational disciplines in the direction of "economics".

The subject of study of this discipline is the historical process of the emergence, development and change of economic ideas and concepts presented in the theories of individual economists

Methodologically, the history of economic doctrines is based on a set of progressive methods of economic analysis. These include methods: historical, logical abstraction, systemic.

The history of economic teachings dates back to the times of the ancient world, i.e. emergence of the first states. Since then and to this day, constant attempts have been made to systematize economic views into an economic theory accepted by society as a guide to action in the implementation of economic policy. At the same time, as changes occur in the economy, science, technology and culture, economic theory is constantly updated and improved

General characteristics of the classical direction

The concept of “classical political economy” was first used by K. Marx, who divided political economists into “classics” and representatives of “vulgar” political economy. He included W. Petty and subsequent economists before D. Ricardo among the classics, who set as their goal to identify “the real laws of the functioning of capitalist society.” He called J. - B. Say and other economists who entered the arena of theoretical research during the period when the bourgeoisie of France and England gained power as “vulgar” economists. After this, according to K. Marx, “the death hour of scientific bourgeois political economy struck”, to the period of the conquest of political power by the bourgeoisie (K. Marx called the teachings of J. Mill “the decline of bourgeois political economy”)

Definition of classical political economy

Classical political economy arose when entrepreneurial activity, following the sphere of trade, money circulation and lending operations, also spread to many industries and the sphere of production as a whole. This period marked the beginning of a truly new school of political economy, which is called classical primarily for the scientific nature of many of its theories and methodological provisions that underlie modern economic science.

As a result of the disintegration of mercantilism and the strengthening of the growing tendency to limit direct state control over economic activity, “pre-industrial conditions” lost their former significance and “free private enterprise” prevailed. In modern foreign economic literature, while paying tribute to the achievements of classical political economy, they do not idealize them. At the same time, in the economic education system of most countries of the world, the identification of the “classical school” as the corresponding section of the course on the history of economic doctrines is carried out primarily from the point of view of the general characteristic features and traits inherent in the works of its authors. This position allows us to include a number of scientists of the 19th century - followers of the famous A. Smith - among the representatives of classical political economy.

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

Behaviorism arose in the USA and was a reaction to the structuralism of V. Wundtai and E. Titchenera and American functionalism. Its founder was J. Watson (1878-1958), whose article “Psychology from the Point of View of a Behaviorist” (1913) marked the beginning of the direction. In it, the author criticized psychology for subjectivism, calling “... consciousness with its structural units, elementary sensations, sensory tones, attention, perception, representation in vague expressions only,” as well as for practical uselessness. He declared the subject of behaviorism to be the study of behavior in an objective way and with the purpose of serving practice. “Behaviourism intends to become the laboratory of society.”

The philosophical basis of behaviorism is a fusion of positivism and pragmatism. As scientific prerequisites, J. Watson cited research on animal psychology, especially E. Thorndike, as well as the school of objective psychology. However, all these studies were, as Watson assessed them, “more likely a reaction to anthropomorphism than to psychology as a science of consciousness” 3. He also noted the influence of the works of I. P. Pavlov and V. M. Bekhterev.

Human behavior as the subject of behaviorism is all actions and words, both acquired and innate, what people do from birth to death. Behavior is any reaction (R) in response to an external stimulus (5), through which the individual adapts. This is a set of changes in smooth and striated muscles, as well as changes in the glands that follow in response to an irritant. Thus, the concept of behavior is interpreted extremely broadly: it includes any reaction, including secretion of a gland and a vascular reaction. At the same time, this definition is extremely narrow, since it is limited only to what is externally observable: physiological mechanisms and mental processes are excluded from the analysis as unobservable. As a result, behavior is interpreted mechanistically, since it is reduced only to its external manifestations.

“The main task of behaviorism is to accumulate observations of human behavior in such a way that in each given case, given a given stimulus (or better yet, situation), the behaviorist can tell in advance what the reaction will be or, if a reaction is given, what situation will cause this reaction.” 4 . These are the two problems of behaviorism. Watson classifies all reactions on two grounds: whether they are acquired or hereditary; internal (hidden) or external (external). As a result, reactions are distinguished in behavior: external or visible acquired (for example, playing tennis, opening a door, etc. motor skills); internal or hidden acquired (thinking, which in behaviorism means external speech); external (visible) hereditary (for example, grasping, sneezing, blinking, as well as reactions to fear, rage, love, i.e. instincts and emotions, but described purely objectively in terms of stimuli and reactions); internal (hidden) hereditary reactions of the endocrine glands, changes in blood circulation, etc., studied in physiology. Watson subsequently distinguished between instinctive and emotional reactions: “...if adaptations are caused by a stimulus of an internal nature and relate to the body of the subject, then we have an emotion, for example, blushing; if a stimulus leads to an adaptation of the organism, then we have an instinct - for example, grasping” 5.

Observation of the newborn led to the conclusion that the number of complex unlearned reactions at birth and shortly after it is relatively small and cannot provide adaptation. The behaviorist does not find data confirming the existence of hereditary forms of behavior, such as crawling, climbing, pugnacity, or hereditary abilities (musical, artistic, etc.) - In practice, behavior is the result of learning. He believes in the omnipotence of education. “Give me a dozen healthy, strong children and people, and I will undertake to make each of them a specialist of my choice: a doctor, a businessman, a lawyer, and even a beggar and a thief, regardless of their talents, inclinations, tendencies and abilities, as well as profession and the races of their ancestors" 6. Therefore, skill and learning become the main problem of behaviorism. Speech and thinking are considered as types of skills. A skill is an individually acquired or learned action. It is based on elementary movements that are innate. A new or learned element in a skill is the tying together or combining of separate movements in such a way as to produce a new activity. Watson described the process of developing a skill and built a learning curve (using the example of learning archery). At first, random experimental movements predominate, many are mistaken and only a few are successful. Initial accuracy is low. Improvement is fast for the first 60 shots, then slower. Periods without improvement are observed - these sections on the curve are called “plateaus”. The curve ends at the physiological limit characteristic of the individual. Successful movements are associated with greater changes in the body, so that they are better maintained and physiologically “therefore tend to be consolidated.

Retention of skills constitutes memory. In contradiction to the refusal to study unobservable mechanisms of behavior, Watson puts forward a hypothesis about such mechanisms, which he calls the principle of conditioning. Calling all hereditary reactions unconditioned reflexes, and acquired ones conditioned, J. Watson argues that the most important condition for the formation of a connection between them is the simultaneity in the action of the unconditioned and conditioned stimuli, so that stimuli that initially did not cause any reaction now begin to cause it. It is assumed that the connection is the result of a switching of excitation in the central authority on the path of a stronger, i.e., unconditioned stimulus. However, the behaviorist does not concern himself with this central process, limiting himself to observing the relationship of the response to all new stimuli.

In behaviorism, the process of skill formation and learning is interpreted mechanistically. Skills are developed through blind trial and error and are an unguided process. Here one of the possible paths is presented as the only and mandatory one 7 . Despite these limitations, Watson's concept laid the foundation for a scientific theory of the process of motor skill formation and learning in general.

7 There is another way, which is based on managing the process of skill formation: a system of conditions necessary for an action is identified, and its implementation is organized focusing on these conditions.

By the mid-20s. behaviorism became widespread in America, which allowed E. Boring to write: “... it would not be an exaggeration to say that at present behaviorism is a typical American psychology, despite the fact that perhaps the majority of American psychologists will refuse to call themselves behaviorists" 8 . At the same time, it became increasingly clear to researchers that excluding the psyche leads to an inadequate interpretation of behavior. This was pointed out by E. Tolman in his criticism of Watson, calling his approach molecular 9 . Indeed, if we exclude its motivational-cognitive components from behavior, it is impossible to explain the integration of individual reactions into a particular act or activity such as “a person builds a house,” swims, writes a letter, etc. J. Watson’s statement that The behaviorist is interested in the behavior of the whole person, is in no way supported by his mechanistic atomistic position and even comes into conflict with it, which he himself admitted. “The behaviorist in his scientific activity uses tools, the existence of which he denies both in his object and in himself.” Due to the mechanism in the interpretation of behavior, a person in behaviorism acts as a reactive being, his active conscious activity is ignored. “Environmental conditions influence us in such a way that at a given moment, under given conditions, any object can only evoke a strictly corresponding and conditioned course of action” 10. This does not take into account the qualitative changes that occur in behavior with the transition to humans: data obtained in animal studies are transferred to humans. Watson emphasized that he wrote this work and considered man as an animal organism. Hence naturalism in the interpretation of man. Man “...is an animal distinguished by verbal behavior” 11.

The hidden basis of behaviorism is the identification of the psyche with its introspective understanding in the psychology of consciousness. According to Vygotsky and Rubinstein, ignoring consciousness, the psyche, instead of rebuilding the introspectionist concept of consciousness, is the essence of Watson's radical behaviorism. Obviously, it is impossible to base psychology on the denial of the psyche. At the same time, Watson's historical merit is the study of behavior and the acute formulation of the problem of an objective approach in psychology. Also important is the task he put forward to control human behavior, the focus of scientific research on connections with practical problems. However, due to the mechanistic approach to man as a reacting organism, the implementation of this task receives b behaviorism is a direction that dehumanizes a person: management begins to be identified with the manipulation of the individual.

Back in 1913, W. Hunter, in experiments with delayed reactions, showed that the animal reacts not only directly to the stimulus: behavior involves processing the stimulus in the body. This posed a new problem. An attempt to overcome the simplified interpretation of behavior according to the stimulus-response scheme by introducing internal processes that unfold in the body under the influence of a stimulus and influence the reaction was made by various variants of neobehaviorism. It also develops new models of conditioning, and the results of research are widely disseminated in various areas of social practice. The foundations of neobehaviorism were laid by E. Tolman (1886-1959). In the book “Target Behavior of Animals and Man” (1932), he showed that experimental observations of animal behavior do not correspond to Watson’s molecular understanding of behavior according to the stimulus-response pattern. Behavior, according to Tolman, is a molar phenomenon, that is, a holistic act that is characterized by its own properties: goal orientation, intelligibility, plasticity, selectivity, expressed in the willingness to choose means leading to the goal in shorter ways. The introduction of the concepts of goal (intention) and field into the characteristics of behavior reflects Tolman’s position in relation to other directions in psychology: he recognized the compatibility of behaviorism with Gestalt psychology and depth psychology. Convinced of the complexity of the determination of behavior, Tolman distinguished three types of its determinants: independent variables (initial causes of behavior), stimuli and the initial physiological state of the organism; abilities, i.e. species properties of the organism; intervening variables - intentions (goals) and cognitive processes. Coming out against the subjectivist interpretation of these formations in the spirit of old mentalism, Tolman made the interfering variables the subject of his own experimental research. In experiments on latent learning, vicarious trial and error, hypotheses, etc., the concept of a “cognitive map” was formulated. A cognitive map is a structure that develops in the animal’s brain as a result of processing external influences. It includes a complex significatory structure of the relationship between stimuli and goals (sign - gestalt) and determines the behavior of the animal in the situation of the actual task. The combination of such maps allows one to adequately navigate the situation of life tasks in general, including for a person. Despite all the reservations associated with attempts to avoid mentalism, in fact, as a result of the introduction of intermediate variables, behavior actually receives a psychological characteristic. Tolman extended the findings obtained on animals to humans, thereby sharing Watson’s biologizing positions.

A major contribution to the development of neobehaviorism was made by K. Hull (1884-1952). His hypothetico-deductive theory of behavior was formed under the influence of the ideas of Pavlov, Thorndike, and Watson. His own experimental research was carried out in the field of learning in animals. Like Watson's theory, Hull's theory does not take into account the factor of consciousness, but unlike Watson, instead of the stimulus-reaction scheme, Hull introduces the formula proposed back in 1929 by Woodworth, stimulus-organism-reaction, where the organism is some invisible processes occurring within it processes. They can be described objectively, like stimulus and response: these are the results of previous learning (a skill, in Hull’s terminology), a deprivation regime, the derivative of which is drive, drug injections, etc. Behavior begins with stimulation from the external world or from a state of need and ends with a reaction . “The evolution of organic processes has led to the appearance of a form of nervous system in higher organisms which, under the influence of need and muscular activity, will cause, without previous training, those changes in movements that would have the potential to nullify the need. We call this kind of activity behavior”,2. Using logical and mathematical analysis, Hull sought to identify the relationship between these variables, stimuli, and behavior. He formulated laws of behavior - theoretical postulates that establish connections between the main variables that determine behavior. Hull considered rudeness to be the main determinant of behavior. The need causes the activity of the organism, its behavior. The strength of the reaction (reaction potential) depends on the strength of the need. Need determines the nature of behavior that differs in response to different needs. The most important condition for the formation of a new connection, according to Hull, is the contiguity of stimulus, reactions and reinforcement, which reduces the need. Thus Hull accepts Thorndike's law of effect. The strength of the connection (response potential) depends on the number of reinforcements and is a function of it, and it also depends on the delay of reinforcement. Hull emphasizes the crucial role of reinforcement in the formation of new connections. He is responsible for the thorough theoretical and experimental development and mathematical calculation of the dependence of the reaction on the nature of reinforcement (partial, intermittent, constant) and on the time of its presentation. These learning factors were complemented by principles. The fact that the animal behaved differently in different sections of the path in the process of developing a skill was revealed in experiments with mazes (the speed of going around dead ends at the beginning and at the end of the maze is not the same, and in the second case it is greater; the number of errors in sections far from the goal is greater than at the end of the maze; the speed of movement in a maze when going through it again is greater at the end of the path than at the beginning) is called the goal gradient. The phenomena described by Hull testified to the holistic - molar - nature of behavior. In the principle of the target gradient, Hull saw the similarity of his concept with the doctrine of field forces by K. Lewin. The integration of individual motor acts into a holistic behavioral act is facilitated by anticipatory reactions or anticipatory responses to irritation - experimentally discovered phenomena of partial responses that contribute to finding actions leading to the goal. Thus, it was observed that in the process of training the animal goes less and less deeply into dead ends or even only slows down its movements around them, just as in the process of developing a conditioned reflex there comes a moment when, before the appearance of danger, animals carry out protective, i.e., expedient, actions only when there is a danger signal. Hull considered anticipatory reactions as functional equivalents of ideas, goals, and intentions.

The experience of a mathematical approach to describing behavior in the Hull system influenced the subsequent development of mathematical theories of learning. Under the direct influence of Hull, N. E. Miller and O. G. Maurer began to study issues of learning. They created their own concepts, staying within the framework of traditional reinforcement theory, but using Hull's formal approach. K-Spence and his students A. Amsel, F. Logan continued the development of Hull's theoretical ideas.

Another version of the concepts of behavior that includes intermediate mechanisms in the structure of behavior is the theory of subjective behaviorism, which was proposed by D. Miller, Y. Galanter, K. Pribram. Under the influence of the development of computers and by analogy with the programs embedded in them, they postulated mechanisms and processes within the body that mediate the response to a stimulus and the reality of which is beyond doubt. They named Image and Plan as such authorities connecting stimulus and response. “An image is all the accumulated and organized knowledge of an organism about itself and about the world in which it exists... when using this term, we mean, in

basically the same type of representation that other cognitive theorists have demanded. It includes everything that the organism has acquired - its assessments along with facts - organized with the help of those concepts, images or relationships that it was able to develop: "1 *. “A plan is any hierarchically constructed process of an organism that is capable of controlling the order in which any sequence of operations should be performed” 14. The image is informative, and the plan is algorithmic aspects of the organization of behavior. Throughout, the authors point out the analogies of these formations to computer programs. Behavior is viewed as a series of movements, and man is viewed as a complex computing machine. The strategy of the plan is built on the basis of tests carried out in the conditions created by the image. A test is the basis of a holistic process of behavior, with the help of which it becomes clear that the operational phase (operate) is carried out correctly. Thus, the concept of behavior includes the idea of feedback. Each operation is preceded by a test. A unit of behavior is described according to the scheme: T-O-T-E (result).

“...The T-O-T-E scheme states that the operations performed by the body are constantly regulated by the results of various tests.” The position of subjective behaviorism reflects the general trend in the development of behaviorism, when, in the words of the authors themselves, almost every behaviorist smuggles into his system one or another type of invisible phenomena - internal reactions, impulses, incentives, etc. ... this is what everyone does for the simple reason that without this it is impossible to understand the meaning of behavior” 5. However, the authors never tire of emphasizing that these invisible phenomena - “intermediate variables” - should not be understood in the spirit of psychological concepts of subjective introspective psychology. Interpreting them by analogy with the design of computers cannot be considered satisfactory, because in a machine, images and plans are material formations, the action of which occurs automatically, while the psyche appears as a necessary condition for the subject to perform an action in new circumstances. The authors anticipate that their explanations may be regarded as crude mechanistic analogies and hypotheses, but nevertheless consider them to fairly accurately reflect the essence of behavior. In general, subjective behaviorism in the interpretation of behavior remains within the framework of mechanistic behaviorist methodology and does not reach a real explanation of the regulation of human behavior.

The core of economic thought (as a science) is the history of political economy, which was formed as an independent science in the era of the emergence of capitalism. First of all, the formation of capitalist relations took place in England, where the development and spread of manufacturing took place, which gave rise to new sources of profit, i.e.

In addition to commercial capital, industrial capital is formed here. Therefore, the views of mercantilists, who prove the profitability of only foreign trade during the period of development of capitalism (towards the end of the 17th and beginning of the 18th centuries), come into conflict with practice. In this regard, a scientific justification for the subordination of commercial capital to industrial capital was required. This was the reason for the formation of the classical school of bourgeois political economy, which fulfilled the mission of defending the superiority of capitalist production over feudal production. Thus, the classical school replaced mercantilism.

Classical political economy is an economic system that emerged towards the end of the 18th century and for a long time became the dominant current of economic thought. Political economy is the study of human relations of production and economic laws. It was formed and developed greatly only in 2 countries: England and France, although mercantilism was more widespread

The classical school developed at the end of the 18th century. and, despite the diversity and multiplicity of its constituent movements, it had several common features:

1) the subject of research was the sphere of material production, where the patterns of its development were identified;

2) the cost of a product was determined through the labor costs for its production (i.e.

Labor theory of value);

3) government intervention in the economy was considered unnecessary, because it was believed that the market could regulate itself.

The merit of economists of the classical school and their contribution to the development of economic science is the transfer of the analysis of phenomena from the sphere of circulation to the sphere of production itself and the revelation of the internal laws of capitalist production and the search for the laws of its movement. The “classics” presented the processes occurring in the economy in the most general form as a sphere of interconnected laws and categories, as a logically coherent system of relations. Representatives of the classical school of political economy are Adam Smith and David Ricardo, who showed that the source of wealth is not foreign trade (like the mercantilists) and not nature as such (like the physiocrats), but the sphere of production, labor activity in its diverse forms. The labor theory of value, which does not completely refute the usefulness of a product, served as one of the starting points of political economy.

The classical school became a solid foundation for the development of political economy, since the classics outlined the range of fundamental problems, formed the main tasks facing science and created research tools, without which its further development is impossible.