DOCSLIB.ORG

Mercantilism and Capitalism More State, Again the Rise of the Social and Interventionist State

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mercantilism and Capitalism More State, Again the Rise of the Social and Interventionist State Mercantilism and Capitalism More State, Again The Rise of the Social and Interventionist State The 1870’s acted as a watershed in the central European history of the 19th and 20th centuries. This was true of, e.g., the development of liberalism. In the 1860’s and early 1870’s, it had much influence, even if it had to share power with the government of the less-than-completely-liberal Bismarck, and even if it wasn’t ever quite as strong in Germany as it was, e.g., in England. But now, at the end of the 1870’s, it began its decades-long decline. The 1870’s also represent a watershed, if one considers the long- term changing relationship between the economy and the state. The economy and the state: three phases The economy and the state in mercantilism: in the 17th and 18th centuries, there were many interventions by the state into economic and social relations. In order to expand taxes, and increase their power, the noble territorial rulers and their bureaucrats had attempted to encourage business and trade. They had roads and canals built, and enabled the founding of manufacturing industries (and sometimes actively led them themselves) by freeing the enterprising individual from the rules of the trade guilds, by providing venture capital, or by giving physical facilities. This absolutist policy, aimed at strengthening the economy and the state, was called mercantilism. It consisted of many small interventions into the economy. Its success was usually rather limited. If the demand and the transportation infrastructure weren’t there, then the construction of the best silk factory was of little use. The bureaucrats weren’t entrepreneurs. Their economic “big picture” was rather narrow. If they were successful, the prince or the state benefited, not they. If they failed, they didn’t have to “make even for it” out of their own pockets. All of this didn’t exactly drive them onwards. Lots of economy, little state: the phase of liberal economics. Mercantilism ended around 1800. The conviction slowly spread, that the state should only set the framework needed by the economy; but that the economy otherwise should be left to itself, if it was to be successful and useful to all. In England, this economic liberalism had already arrived in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the famous book, The Wealth of Nations, by Englishman Adam Smith, this economic liberalism had been given its classical formulation: a brilliant plea for capitalism, i.e., for an economic system which is governed neither by the strangle-hold of bureaucracy, nor by the guilds and professional fraternities, but rather by the market. It is based upon the private ownership of capital, upon the free and profit- driven decisions of private entrepreneurs, and upon trade between them, and also upon their right to hire workers on a contractual basis, and to have the workers work for them in exchange for a wage, i.e., to exchange work for a wage. If everyone, in an enlightened attitude and in respect for the laws, follows his own personal individual interests, then the common good also indirectly benefits, because only in this way are the powers of the Mercantilism – page 1 individual mobilized, and the economic thought of many people be brought into action. This was the message of Adam Smith. In the German states, too, this or similar convictions made themselves felt among the bureaucrats, and among many citizens, beginning around 1800. The regulations of trade guilds were dismantled step by step, in Prussia already by 1810 and 1811, in Saxony, Bavaria, and other southern German states only finally in the 1860’s. Within the framework of the law, then, everyone could choose his occupation freely, and correspondingly follow his best judgment, pursuing his own interests. Governmental agricultural reforms freed the farmers from their hereditary ties to the land and from obligations to rulers; they allowed the sale and purchase of farmland. The state retreated step by step from economic life. Less and less did the officials participate in the founding of firms. Until 1861, bureaucrats still directed mining in Prussia. Between 1861 and 1865, the direction of mining transitioned into the private sector. Duties inside the states - often at each city limits – had long hindered free trade; they fell in the early 19th century. Since around 1860, free trade dominated also between European states. Protective duties were removed, trade treaties signed. To be sure, the state never retreated entirely from economics. Trade schools, like general eduction, remained governmental. The state continued to build streets, canals, and - in southern Germany - also most of the earliest railroads. The state was, especially in Germany, always more than merely a “night watchman state” and never restricted itself only to the enforcement of calmness and orderliness. Despite this, one can say that the reality in the 1860’s and 1870’s came very close to the economic-liberal-capitalist model: much market, little state - very different than at the beginning of the 19th century. And this system, based on free enterprise, private property, and work for wage, did well for itself. To be sure, it distributed the fruits of economic growth somewhat unevenly, and there was a distinction between rich and poor. There was inequality, dependency, insecurity, and exploitation. The socialists criticized this sharply. But, on the other hand, the system brought so much technical progress, and so much industrial economic growth, that even the poor became less poor, the survival chances of the general population increased, and the Industrial Revolution was put into motion, which promised still much more and better things for the future. The state gets more strongly involved again. In the 1870’s, there was a change in the trend: the state’s intervention into the economy and the society increased again, even if only gradually. We have learned the reasons: The serious economic crisis, and the sharpening of social tensions mainly between the workers and the middle class which went along with it, brought forth changes, in the course of which the state’s offices again intervened more strongly, even if the basic principles of a capitalistic market and entrepreneur economy remained intact. By means of protective tariffs, the state intervened in foreign trade, and with the help of socialist laws, it intervened in the social Mercantilism – page 2 conflict. In other areas of life, too, the state became more strongly involved. Thus the railroads, which had been private until then, were nationalized for the most part by 1890, and the continuing construction of the railroad infrastructure happened under state direction. A further example: between 1883 and 1889, the German empire created a modern system of social security (nationalized insurance). In 1883, nationalized health insurance arose; in 1884, accident insurance; and in 1889, retirement and disability insurance. The funds were contributed largely by the workers and employers. The disbursements were substantially lower than today, but slowly, they began to increase. Those covered, at first only a few, grew in number. In 1911, a separate social security system arose for white- collar workers. By 1913, the vast majority of all workers were covered. The retirees couldn’t live on the pensions, but the pensions formed a basis for other small incomes, through the family, small jobs, or savings and investments. Unemployment insurance arose not until 1927. According to Bismarck’s intentions, the social security system was to take the wind out of the sails of the social-democratic movement. This didn’t exactly happen, but social security did bring, for the mass of the population, a minimum of security against the risks of life. In the examples of protective tariff policy, nationalized railroads, and social security, it can be seen that the significance of the state – and thus of the bureaucrats – in economic and social life increased starting in the 1870’s and 1880’s. Other examples could be mentioned. Thus legal protection for workers made progress, above all in the 1890’s. The duties and the personnel of the post office were expanded – in Germany, this, too, was a state activity. Starting in the 1880’s, telephone service was a part of this. Even in the towns, things changed. The city government busied itself more with the needs of daily life: building streets and parks, serious sewer problems, and naturally the schools. Many of the new electrical generating plants were built, starting in the 1890’s, as “economically mixed enterprises”, in which the towns worked together with private entrepreneurs. Mercantilism – page 3 .
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Unfree Labor, Capitalism and Contemporary Forms of Slavery
    Unfree Labor, Capitalism and Contemporary Forms of Slavery Siobhán McGrath Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science, New School University Economic Development & Global Governance and Independent Study: William Milberg Spring 2005 1. Introduction It is widely accepted that capitalism is characterized by “free” wage labor. But what is “free wage labor”? According to Marx a “free” laborer is “free in the double sense, that as a free man he can dispose of his labour power as his own commodity, and that on the other hand he has no other commodity for sale” – thus obliging the laborer to sell this labor power to an employer, who possesses the means of production. Yet, instances of “unfree labor” – where the worker cannot even “dispose of his labor power as his own commodity1” – abound under capitalism. The question posed by this paper is why. What factors can account for the existence of unfree labor? What role does it play in an economy? Why does it exist in certain forms? In terms of the broadest answers to the question of why unfree labor exists under capitalism, there appear to be various potential hypotheses. ¾ Unfree labor may be theorized as a “pre-capitalist” form of labor that has lingered on, a “vestige” of a formerly dominant mode of production. Similarly, it may be viewed as a “non-capitalist” form of labor that can come into existence under capitalism, but can never become the central form of labor. ¾ An alternate explanation of the relationship between unfree labor and capitalism is that it is part of a process of primary accumulation.
    [Show full text]
  • Challenging Mercantilism: the Impact of David Hume on the Evolution of Monetary Thought
    Student Economic Review, Vol. 22, 2008 CHALLENGING MERCANTILISM: THE IMPACT OF DAVID HUME ON THE EVOLUTION OF MONETARY THOUGHT ALEXANDER TOFT Senior Sophister Despite its somewhat irrational and outdated nature, mercantilist sentiment is very much alive today. In times of economic slowdown, it often bubbles to the surface of popular economic discourse, threatening to make an unwelcome return to politics and policy. The spirits of mercantilism and protectionism have always gone very much hand in hand. In this paper, Alexander Toft provides an excellent appraisal of David Hume’s monetary thought, in particular examining his attack on the 17th century mercantilist monopoly over economic discourse. Introduction The history of economic thought can be viewed as a series of ideological battles, and key amongst them must rank the debate surrounding the notion that the government has a role to play in ensuring a more favorable balance of trade – what is commonly called mercantilism. Adam Smith is often credited with initiating this debate when he attacked the concept in The Wealth of Nations (Smith, 1776). However, this paper will examine the work of another original detractor from mercantilist thinking, David Hume. A philosopher and historian first and foremost, Hume was also an eminent economist. This paper will argue that through his analysis of the influence of money on inflation and the balance of payments, Hume played a pioneering role in challenging the mercantilist monopoly on economic thought. He contributed towards the development of an alternative theory which centered on free trade, as opposed to a ‘fear of goods’ and ‘love of money’.
    [Show full text]
  • Schools of Economic Thought (Pdf)
    SCHOOLS OF ECONOMIC THOUGHT A BRIEF HISTORY OF ECONOMICS This isn't really essential to know, but may satisfy the curiosity of many. Mercantilism Economics is said to begin with Adam Smith in 1776. Prior to that, nobody thought of economics, or markets, as an object of study. It is not that they didn't pay attention to economic matters, it is simply that they didn't think of it in any systematic or coherent manner. It was all just off-the-cuff intuition and policy proposals by a myriad of merchants, government officials & journalists, principally in Britain. It is common to denote the period before 1776 as "Mercantilism". It wasn't a coherent school of thought, but a hodge-podge of varying ideas about improving tax revenues, the value & movements of gold and how nations competed for international commerce & colonies. Mostly protectionist, 'war-minded', and all haphazardly argued. (the principal features of the Mercantilist school are discussed in our "Gains from Trade" handout). There was some opposition to Mercantilist doctrines, notably among French and Scottish thinkers (e.g. Pierre de Boisguilbert, Francois Quesnay, Jacques Turgot and David Hume) Classical School The Enlightenment era (mid-1700s) in Europe brought a new spirit of scientific inquiry. Thinkers began looking to apply scientific principles not only to the physical world, but also to human society. In the same spirit that Sir Isaac Newton 'discovered' the "law of gravity" to explain the interaction of natural forces and decipher how the physical world operates, Enlightenment thinkers began trying to discover the "laws" of human interaction, to explain how human society operates.
    [Show full text]
  • Post-Capitalism, Post-Growth, Post-Consumerism? Eco-Political
    GLOBAL DISCOURSE, 2017 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23269995.2017.1300415 ARTICLE Post-capitalism, post-growth, post-consumerism? Eco-political hopes beyond sustainability Ingolfur Blühdorn Institute for Social Change and Sustainability, Vienna University of Economics and Business, Vienna, Austria ABSTRACT KEYWORDS As a road map for a structural transformation of socially and Politics of unsustainability; ecologically self-destructive consumer societies, the paradigm of rebirth of radical ecology; sustainability is increasingly regarded as a spent force. Yet, its third modernity; denial; exhaustion seems to coincide with the rebirth of several ideas simulation reminiscent of earlier, more radical currents of eco-political thought: liberation from capitalism, consumerism and the logic of growth. May the exhaustion of the sustainability paradigm finally re-open the intellectual and political space for the big push beyond the established socio-economic order? Looking from the perspective of social and eco-political theory, this article argues that the new narratives (and social practices) of post- capitalism, degrowth and post-consumerism cannot plausibly be read as signalling a new eco-political departure. It suggests that beyond the exhaustion of the sustainability paradigm, we are witnessing, more than anything, the further advancement of the politics of unsustainability – and that in this politics the new narratives of hope may themselves be playing a crucial role. 1. Introduction Since the 2012 Rio+20 Summit, at the latest, the paradigm of sustainability is widely regarded as exhausted – categorically unable to deliver any profound structural trans- formation of capitalist consumer societies. To be sure, actual policy-making, from the local to the international level, firmly holds on to the sustainable development promise that consumer capitalism can actually be reconciled with values of social justice, political equality and ecological integrity.
    [Show full text]
  • Embedded Mercantilism and Open Regionalism: the Crisis of a Regional Political Project
    Third World Quarterly, Vol 24, No 2, pp 339–355, 2003 Embedded mercantilism and open regionalism: the crisis of a regional political project KANISHKA JAYASURIYA ABSTRACT This paper advances the argument that moves towards regional integration need to be understood as ‘regional governance projects’ undertaken by domestic actors and coalitions. Regional political projects—such as open regionalism—have roots in domestic structures, and it is this which defines the broad configuration of the regional political economy. On the basis of this frame- work the paper suggests, first, that the strategy of open regionalism was con- tingent on a particular configuration of power and interests in the domestic and external economy (embedded mercantilism). Second, this system of embedded mercantilism depended on a set of domestic coalitions between tradeable and non-tradeable sectors of the economy. The non-tradeable sector in Southeast Asia was entrenched within a particular system of political patronage. Third, the Asian crisis and other structural changes in the international economy have made these domestic coalitions less sustainable, thereby creating opportunities for new forms of regional governance projects. Strategies of regional integration as political projects Open regionalism, in terms of the conceptual framework advanced in this paper, is not so much a strategy of economic liberalisation as a regional regime of political economy that encompasses a set of institutions, domestic coalitional structures and international strategies. The nature of regional integration in East Asia, it will be argued, needs to be understood in the context of the manner in which domestic structures have underpinned a particular project of regional integration that goes under the rubric of open regionalism.
    [Show full text]
  • Economic Principles of Socialism and Capitalism for Addressing Poverty by Matthew Kaiser
    Economic Principles of Socialism and Capitalism for Addressing Poverty By Matthew Kaiser Throughout life many people will never experience extreme poverty, or for that matter poverty at all. There could be many reasons for this, such as being born in a place with low poverty rates or being born into families who are affluent. Regardless of the reasons people will not experience poverty, there are people who cannot seem to escape from poverty. According to the United Nations, around ten percent of the world’s population is living in extreme poverty and struggles to fulfill the most basic human needs (United Nations, n.d.). Why is extreme poverty still a problem in a world immensely more developed than in the past? Would capitalism address poverty more efficiently and better than socialism? To answer these questions there must be an understanding of the definition of poverty, classifications of the different economies, and the characteristics of socialism and capitalism. When one thinks about poverty, one may assume that poverty just entails a lack of financial stability. People who lack income and stability will experience the effects of poverty more than those who do not. However, extreme poverty includes many variables such as hunger, malnutrition, limited access to education, social discrimination, exclusion, and poor living conditions. When these things fester together and economies fail to fix these issues, the result is extreme poverty and poor qualities of life. Though poverty can be found in most places in the world, most extreme poverty is found in developing economies. There are three broad classifications countries can be placed into: developed economies, economies in transition, and developing economies.
    [Show full text]
  • Finance and Class in the Marginalist Revolution Yair Kaldor*
    Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/ser/advance-article-abstract/doi/10.1093/soceco/mwy043/5238113 by Ben Gurion University of the Negev-Medical Library user on 28 July 2019 Socio-Economic Review, 2018, Vol. 0, No. 0, 1–19 doi: 10.1093/soceco/mwy043 Article Article The cultural foundations of economic categories: finance and class in the marginalist revolution Yair Kaldor* Department of Sociology, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract Economic categories are part of the everyday concepts people use to apprehend social reality. While scholars recognize their importance for social and economic processes, it is not clear how these categories develop when reality itself changes. I address this issue with a framework that incorporates a cultural emphasis on meaning-making with a macro-structural analysis of the conditions in which they take place. I apply this framework to the marginalist revolution of the late 19th century, which marks the birth of neoclassical economics and focus on the new understanding of ‘value’ that emerged during this period. I trace it to the rise of finance and the problem of price fluctuations, and show how its class standpoint helps explain the different outcomes of the marginalist revolution in England, Austria and France. The analysis provides insights into the power of economic ideas and the cultural dimension of structural changes. Key words: economic categories, culture, finance, value, neoclassical economics, economic sociology JEL classification: B History of Economic Thought, N2 History of Financial Markets and Institutions, N1 Macroeconomic and Monetary History 1. Introduction The basic categories of economics appear as self-evident and are hardly in need of explana- tion.
    [Show full text]
  • The Power of Capital: an Introduction to Class, Domination, and Conflict
    The Power of Capital: An Introduction to Class, Domination, and Conflict By Alejandro Reuss An ECI Teaching Module on Social and Environmental Issues in Economics Global Development Policy Center Boston University 53 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02155 bu.edu/gdp Economics in Context Initiative, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University, 2020. Permission is hereby granted for instructors to copy this module for instructional purposes. Suggested citation: Reuss, Alejandro. (2020) “The Power of Capital: An Introduction to Class, Domination, and Conflict.” An ECI Teaching Module on Social and Economic Issues, Economics in Context Initiative, Global Development Policy Center, Boston University, 2020. Students may also download the module directly from: http://www.bu.edu/eci/education-materials/teaching-modules/ Comments and feedback from course use are welcomed: Economics in Context Initiative Global Development Policy Center Boston University 53 Bay State Road Boston, MA 02215 http://www.bu.edu/eci/ Email: [email protected] NOTE – terms denoted in bold face are defined in the KEY TERMS AND CONCEPTS section at the end of the module. 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................................... 3 1.1 Economics and Power Relations ........................................................................................... 3 1.2 Outline of the Module ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Capitalism and Its Critics. a Long-Term View
    German Historical Institute London THE 2017 ANNUAL LECTURE Capitalism and Its Critics A Long-Term View by Jürgen Kocka The Concept The concept ‘capitalism’ is much younger than the historical reality it denotes. While ‘capital’ and ‘capitalist’ are older, the noun ‘capitalism’ did not emerge until the second half of the nineteenth century. The French socialist Louis Blanc used it in 1850, and defined it critically as ‘appropriation of capital by some, to the exclusion of others’. In 1872, the German socialist Wilhelm Liebknecht railed against capitalism as a ‘juggernaut on the battlefields of industry’. And in Britain, the Fabian John A. Hobson, a critic of imperialism, was one of the first to use the concept in the 1890s. However, it was not General Editor: Christina von Hodenberg Editor: Jane Rafferty long before ‘capitalism’ moved beyond its initially critical and polemical use, becoming a central concept in the London: 2018 social sciences. German authors such as Albert Schäffle, Werner Sombart, Max Weber, and – in a Marxist Published by The German Historical Institute London tradition – Rudolf Hilferding, contributed much to this. 17 Bloomsbury Square Karl Marx had written a great deal about the ‘capitalist London WC1A 2NJ mode of production’ and ‘capitalist accumulation’, Tel: 020 7309 2050 Fax: 020 7404 5573/7309 2055 email: [email protected] homepage: www.ghil.ac.uk but he rarely used the noun ‘capitalism’, and if so, somewhat marginally. 1 ISSN 0269-8560 This lecture is based on Jürgen Kocka, Capitalism. A Short History Printed and bound by Page Bros., Norwich (Princeton/NJ, 2016). An extended version of the text appeared in Karin Hofmeester (ed.), The Lifework of a Labor Historian.
    [Show full text]
  • The Political Economy of Capitalism
    07-037 The Political Economy of Capitalism Bruce R. Scott Copyright © 2006 by Bruce R. Scott Working papers are in draft form. This working paper is distributed for purposes of comment and discussion only. It may not be reproduced without permission of the copyright holder. Copies of working papers are available from the author. #07-037 Abstract Capitalism is often defined as an economic system where private actors are allowed to own and control the use of property in accord with their own interests, and where the invisible hand of the pricing mechanism coordinates supply and demand in markets in a way that is automatically in the best interests of society. Government, in this perspective, is often described as responsible for peace, justice, and tolerable taxes. This paper defines capitalism as a system of indirect governance for economic relationships, where all markets exist within institutional frameworks that are provided by political authorities, i.e. governments. In this second perspective capitalism is a three level system much like any organized sports. Markets occupy the first level, where the competition takes place; the institutional foundations that underpin those markets are the second; and the political authority that administers the system is the third. While markets do indeed coordinate supply and demand with the help of the invisible hand in a short term, quasi-static perspective, government coordinates the modernization of market frameworks in accord with changing circumstances, including changing perceptions of societal costs and benefits. In this broader perspective government has two distinct roles, one to administer the existing institutional frameworks, including the provision of infrastructure and the administration of laws and regulations, and the second to mobilize political power to bring about modernization of those frameworks as circumstances and/or societal priorities change.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 4: British Mercantilism and the Cost of Empire
    Page 14 Chapter 4 British Mercantilism and the Cost of Empire hree hundred years ago, nations wanted colonies in order to increase their power. According to the economic thinkers of those days, colonies would help the mother country become self-sufficient Tand wealthy. No great nation could exist without colonies. This was the idea behind mercantilism, a forerunner of the present day idea of imperialism. England, Spain, France, and other nations competed with each other to own colonies in North America, South America, Asia, and Africa. Their competition often led to wars. The mercantilists reasoned that even wars were worth the price, because each colony would be a help to its conqueror. England needed raw materials that her colonies could supply. Lumber, wool, iron, cotton, tobacco, rice, and indigo were among the products needed in England. British manufacturers in the meantime needed markets for the goods they produced. The American colonies bought their cloth, furniture, knives, guns, and kitchen utensils from England. In addition, England’s survival as a nation depended on her navy, and the colonies were a constant source of both the timber for her ships and the men who could sail them. Since each nation's wealth in those days was measured in the amounts of gold and silver it possessed, England had yet a another reason for establishing and ruling a vast colonial empire: the colonists would supply their British masters with gold and silver simply by selling their raw materials and buying England’s manufactured products. The difference between what the colonists could pay through their sales of raw materials, and what they owed because of the purchase of manufactured goods, is called the balance of trade.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluation of the Chinese State Capitalist Model in Light of Financial Institutions’ Oil Related Investments Overseas
    Henrik Bergsager Evaluation of the Chinese State Capitalist Model in Light of Financial Institutions’ Oil Related Investments Overseas Paper Prepared for International Culture Conference 15.09-18.09 Henrik Bergsager Draft Draft Draft 1 Henrik Bergsager Abstract In this article prepared for the International Culture Conference, I provide a short introduction to the framework of state capitalism, and discuss Chinese national oil policy in light of the principles based on this framework. To best illustrate this overarching strategy, this paper presents one of the institutions involved in shaping China’s overseas oil acquisitions, namely the Chinese policy banks and their requirements when issuing Energy Based Loans (EBLs) to overseas trade partners. The purpose of this paper is to illustrate how state capitalism plays a pivotal role throughout the Chinese oil investments, whether being commercially or politically initiated investments. This underscores the originality of my research vis-à-vis previous attempts to evaluate the Chinese decision-making process within the oil sector. Based on the institutional framework represented through China’s version of state capitalism, this paper presents an introduction to this research by presenting the principles that are relevant when the financial institutions proceed with Energy Based Loan agreements. Introduction As any person who has studied economic development theory should know, the possibility of determining a country’s economic policy strategy within the framework of a single economic theory is close to impossible. The reason for this is not that there are no applicable choices, but that states tend to implement various theoretical tools from different frameworks suited to their stage of development.1 As underscored by Max Weber: most theoretical frameworks for economic development do not exist in their “pure” form, but instead are coordinated with others to provide the best possible result.
    [Show full text]