Theoria

In 1991, Charles Simkins, the doyen of economic demography in South Africa, wrote an article in Theoria entitled ‘The Scope and Methods of Political Economy’. In this article, a reworked version of his inaugural lecture as the Helen Suzman Professor of Political Economy at the University of the Witwatersrand, Simkins made a powerful case that economics is, of necessity, a moral science. Through the years, a concern with the intersection of politics, economics and the moral dimensions of the ‘human condition’ has been a recurrent theme, and organising motif, of this journal. Many of its contributors have, in diverse and often resonant fashion, reminded readers of the importance of this intersection and of extent to which the understanding of the economy is embedded in an appreciation of its broader historical — that is to say political, societal and cultural — contexts.

David Reisman has written a book of extraordinary scope, depth and subtlety. It is at once both an impressive tour d’horizon, and a work of great insight and expository control. The ostensible subject of the book is the contribution of five seminal thinkers to political economy and, for want of a better term, ‘sociological economics’. While each writer’s contribution is portrayed in a rich, deeply informed, evenhanded and judicious manner, Reisman’s real achievement goes well beyond deft exposition and exegetical acumen. He succeeds in showing both the richness and the complexity of the thinking of the five, as well as in portraying the complexity of the substantive issues with which they deal. He succeeds, too, in situating their thought in the broader historical context both of its genesis and its reception. Thus, in addition to the accounts of the principal subjects of his study, he skillfully weaves accounts of the contributions of ‘notable others’ into the text. Thus Downs, Pareto, Hobhouse, Bosanquet, Green and Crosland are—among others—each given important, illuminating, ‘walk on’ parts. Their contributions constitute significant reference points for the engagement with the contributions of the ‘principals’.

The global economy is battling financial crisis and recession on an unprecedented scale. Reisman's book Democracy and Exchange reviews the contributions of a number of thinkers including Adam Smith and Joseph Schumpeter to the task of making ordinary people feel tolerably happy with the outcomes that affect their lives. The article argues that although Smith is viewed as the principal figure in the Scottish political economy tradition, there are other writers, notably John Rae whose ideas may have more contemporary relevance than those of Smith. A return to the ideas of Rae and Schumpeter, particularly on fiscal policy, may provide important insights into the financial crisis.

This paper examines the prospects for social justice in a democratic community that is justified through the idea of contractual exchange as a cooperative scheme for mutual advantage. Common assumptions concerning the narrow institutional range of the mutual advantage framework are argued against, clearing away certain tensions between exchange and markets and equality and the welfare state. However, it is maintained that the principle of equality must further condition institutional formation beyond efficiency to satisfy the requirements of social justice. It is further advanced that the interest-based motivation in the idea of efficient exchange can be maintained in an egalitarian framework, when the shared interests and expectations of citizenship constitute an equal political baseline, from which universal social entitlement can be justified.

Friedrich Engels, in 1895, reissued Marx's 'The Class Struggles in France 1848-1850' (1850), with an Introduction endorsing peaceful political tactics. We review the primary evidence to bring order to a confusing picture that emerges from a range of conflicting interpretations of the document. Our conclusions are as follows: First, the 1895 Introduction does not signify a new position, considering Engels' recognition over several decades of political concessions by the British ruling class. Secondly, since from the 1840s Marx too had applauded the potential of the 'Social Democratic' route, at least under the appropriate conditions, we may be confident that he would have approved of Engels' Introduction. Thirdly, the case for universal suffrage was to set the foundations for a classless communist system; Engels, we show, would have found unacceptable a Parliamentary system generating a working-class majority unwilling to carry out a communist program, or a working-class electorate choosing to replace the party at the polls.

It’s all in Marshall: ‘Political Economy or Economics is a study of mankind in the ordinary business of life; it examines that part of individual and social action which is most closely connected with the attainment and with the use of the material requisites of wellbeing’ (Marshall, 1890 [1949]: 1). Well-being is better than ill-being. Production, consumption, distribution and exchange make us feel better off in our own estimation. The clergyman saves souls. The doctor saves bodies. The banker saves savings. The economist saves wellbeing. We all do what we can.