Political Econ of Growth. Paul A. Baran

Чтение книги онлайн.

       ONE

       A General View

      THE question why social and economic development has recently moved into the forefront of economic discussion—particularly in the United States—may appear to be a recondite and tedious issue in the history of knowledge only tenuously related to the subject matter itself. This is not quite the case. The history of thought reveals also here the thought of history, and an examination of the circumstances that have brought about the present burst of interest in social and economic change may shed valuable light on the nature and significance of the current debate, as well as on the substance of the problem itself.

      It will be recalled that a strong interest in economic development is by no means an unprecedented novelty in the realm of political economy. In fact, economic growth was the central theme of classical economics. This much is indicated by the title and contents of Adam Smith’s pathbreaking work, and many a generation of economic thinkers, regardless of the names that they gave their writings, were concerned with analyzing the forces that made for economic progress. Their concern with the conditions necessary for economic development grew out of their keen observation and study of the society in which they lived, and resulted in their firm conviction that the political, social, and economic relations prevailing at the time greatly impeded and retarded the development of productive resources. Whether they referred to the fallacies of the mercantilist foreign trade theory or to the rigidities of the guild system, or whether the issue was related to the functions of the state in economic life or to the role played by the landowning class, the classical economists had no trouble in showing that economic progress was predicated upon the removal of outdated political, social, and economic institutions, upon the creation of conditions of free competition under which individual enterprise and initiative would be given ample opportunity for unhampered performance.

      Not that they confined themselves to a critique of the then existing society without making an attempt to provide a positive analysis of the working principles of the rising capitalist order. On the contrary, it was precisely this positive effort that furnished us with much of what we know today about the functioning of the capitalist system. What matters in the present context, however, is that the chief impetus to their prodigious scientific and publicistic endeavors was supplied by the strongly felt necessity to convince the public of the urgency of liberation from feudal and semi-feudal shackles. In this sense, if in no other, it is wholly appropriate to relate the classical school of economics to the rise and development of capitalism, to the triumph of the modern bourgeoisie. In the words of Professor Lionel Robbins:

      The System of Economic Freedom was not just a detached recommendation not to interfere: It was an urgent demand that what were thought to be hampering and anti-social impediments should be removed and that the immense potential of free pioneering individual initiative should be released. And, of course, it was in this spirit that in the world of practice its proponents addressed themselves to agitation against the main forms of these impediments: against the privileges of regulated companies and corporations, against the law of apprenticeship, against restriction on movement, against restraints on importation. The sense of a crusade which emerged in the free trade movement is typical of the atmosphere of the general movement for freeing spontaneous enterprise and energies, of which, without doubt, the classical economists were the intellectual spear-head.¹

      Yet, as soon as capitalism became fully established, and the bourgeois social and economic order firmly entrenched, this order was “consciously or unconsciously” accepted as history’s “terminal station,” and the discussion of social and economic change all but ceased. Like the Boston lady who, in reply to an inquiry whether she had traveled much, observed that she had no need to travel since she had been fortunate enough to be born right in Boston, the neoclassical economists, in contrast to their classical predecessors, were much less concerned with problems of traveling and much more with the question how best to explore and to furnish the house in which they were born. To be sure, to some of them that house did not appear altogether perfect. They all thought of it, however, as sufficiently comfortable and sufficiently spacious to permit of various improvements. But such improvements—desirable as they may have seemed—were to be undertaken slowly, cautiously, and circumspectly, lest harm be done to the foundations and the pillars of the structure. Merely marginal adjustments were deemed practicable and advisable—nothing drastic, nothing radical could hope for approval on the part of economic science.² Natura non facit saltum suggests clearly that no moving was contemplated; it is certainly not the motto of economic development.

      For economic development implies precisely the opposite of what Marshall placed on the title page of his Principles. It implies the crude but crucial fact—often, if not always, overlooked—that economic development has historically always meant a far-reaching transformation of society’s economic, social, and political structure, of the dominant organization of production, distribution, and consumption. Economic development has always been propelled by classes and groups interested in a new economic and social order, has always been opposed and obstructed by those interested in the preservation of the status quo, rooted in and deriving innumerable benefits and habits of thought from the existing fabric of society, the prevailing mores, customs, and institutions. It has always been marked by more or less violent clashes, has proceeded by starts and spurts, suffered setbacks and gained new terrain—it has never been a smooth, harmonious process unfolding placidly over time and space.

      However, this historical generalization—probably one of the best established that we have—was quickly lost sight of in bourgeois economics. In fact, having started as advocacy of capitalism, having grown to be its most sophisticated and perhaps most influential rationalization, it had to share the fate of all the other branches of bourgeois thought. As long as reason and the lessons to be learned from history СКАЧАТЬ