CRITICAL NOTICE

2006 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 429-439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Guala

The title of this book is rather misleading. “Birth of neoliberal governmentality,” or something like that, would have been more faithful to its contents. In Foucault's vocabulary, “biopolitics” is the “rationalisation” of “governmentality” (p. 261): it's the theory, in other words, as opposed to the art (governmentality) of managing people. The mismatch between title and content is easily explained: the general theme of the courses at the Collège de France had to be announced at the beginning of each academic year. It is part of the mandate of every professor at the Collège, however, that his lectures should follow closely his current research. As a consequence it wasn't unusual for Foucault to take new directions while he was lecturing. In 1979, for the first and only time in his career, he took a diversion into contemporary political philosophy. His principal object of investigation became “neoliberal” political economy. More precisely, he got increasingly interested in those strands of contemporary liberalism that use economic science both as a principle of limitation and of inspiration for the management of people.

2018 ◽  
pp. 118-127 ◽  
Author(s):  
G. B. Kleiner

The development of the system paradigm in economic science leads to the formulation of a number of important questions to the political economy as one of the basic directions of economic theory. In this article, on the basis of system introspection, three questions are considered. The first is the relevance of the class approach to the structuring of the socio-economic space; the second is the feasibility of revising the notion of property in the modern world; the third is the validity of the notion of changing formations as the sequence of “slave-owning system — feudal system — capitalist system”. It is shown that in modern society the system approach to the structuring of socio-economic space is more relevant than the class one. Today the classical notion of “property” does not reflect the diversity of production and economic relations in society and should be replaced by the notion of “system property”, which provides a significant expansion of the concepts of “subject of property” and “object of property”. The change of social formations along with the linear component has a more influential cyclic constituent and obeys the system-wide cyclic regularity that reflects the four-cycle sequence of the dominance of one of the subsystems of the macrosystem: project, object, environment and process.


Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith are two of the foremost thinkers of the European Enlightenment, thinkers who made seminal contributions to moral and political philosophy and who shaped some of the key concepts of modern political economy. Among Smith’s first published works was a letter to the Edinburgh Review where he discusses Rousseau’s Discourse on the Origin of Inequality. Smith continued to engage with Rousseau’s work and to explore many shared themes such as sympathy, political economy, sentiment, and inequality. This collection brings together an international and interdisciplinary group of Adam Smith and Rousseau scholars to provide an exploration of the key shared concerns of these two great thinkers in politics, philosophy, economics, history, and literature.


2019 ◽  
pp. 74-98
Author(s):  
A.B. Lyubinin

Review of the monograph indicated in the subtitle V.T. Ryazanov. The reviewer is critical of the position of the author of the book, believing that it is possible and even necessary (to increase the effectiveness of General economic theory and bring it closer to practice) substantial (and not just formal-conventional) synthesis of the Marxist system of political economy with its non-Marxist systems. The article emphasizes the difference between the subject and the method of the classical, including Marxist, school of political economy with its characteristic objective perception of the subject from the neoclassical school with its reduction of objective reality to subjective assessments; this excludes their meaningful synthesis as part of a single «modern political economy». V.T. Ryazanov’s interpretation of commodity production in the economic system of «Capital» of K. Marx as a purely mental abstraction, in fact — a fiction, myth is also counter-argued. On the issue of identification of the discipline «national economy», the reviewer, unlike the author of the book, takes the position that it is a concrete economic science that does not have a political economic status.


2021 ◽  
pp. 147488512110020
Author(s):  
Alexandra Oprea

Ryan Patrick Hanley makes two original claims about François Fénelon: (1) that he is best regarded as a political philosopher, and (2) that his political philosophy is best understood as “moderate and modern.” In what follows, I raise two concerns about Hanley’s revisionist turn. First, I argue that the role of philosophy in Fénelon’s account is rather as a handmaiden of theology than as an autonomous area of inquiry—with implications for both the theory and practice of politics. Second, I use Fénelon’s writings on the education of women as an illustration of the more radical and reactionary aspects of his thought. Despite these limits, the book makes a compelling case for recovering Fénelon and opens up new conversations about education, religion, political economy, and international relations in early modern political thought.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (13) ◽  
Author(s):  
Donatas Palavenis

Object of the analysis. Increasing defence expenditures bring back a discussion weather the national defence industry is necessary to sustain economic welfare of a country, boosts innovations and enhances own military sector. Investigation problem. The use of political economy theories in that case could facilitate further research steps and guide scientists that will look for a precise answer to this issue. The aim of this manuscript is to review political economy theories that can be used in defining defence industry as such, and consider practical applicability options of different methodological approaches in the context of defence industry. To reach this aim, following objectives were designed: 1. Describe political economy phenomena and define its evolution; 2. Evaluate traditions of political economy and define their practical significance; 3. Assess methods used in actual analysis of defence industry and define the main findings. Research methods. While writing this article, the comparative literature analysis method was used. The famous scientists such as R. Abdelal, C., Adam, S. Dercon, G. Agostino, J. P. Dunne, L. Pieroni, M. Blyth, G. Browning, A. Kilmister, J. P. Dunne, E. Skons, D. Braddon, A. Gilpin, A. Goldstein, R. Jacson, G. Sorensen, S. Jevons, R. O. Keohane, C. W. Mitchell, I. D. Salavrakos, A. Sen and R. M. Smith were cited and referenced. All used literature is referenced. This article is structured into two big parts. The first part is devoted to the analysis of political economy subject itself and its approaches towards empirical research. The second part is designed to reveal possible application options of different theoretical political economy approaches in the context of defence industry. Outcomes and conclusions. In the context of current analysis of different political economy theories, different approaches on methodology, analytical side, linkage with defence industry, defence spending and possible insights about investigation possibilities the following conclusions were found: Political economy that originated in the XVII–XVIIIth century and currently is adopting different theoretical approaches in most cases is still relying on “grand” theories such as realism (mercantilism), liberalism, and Marxism. The existing variety of research methodologies and tools suggests the “correct” way to examine features of situation based on selected theory. Researches should be aware that even a proper methodology does not guaranty the reliability of research results due to the complexity of political economy subject itself and its interdependency to both political and economic science features. There are different scholars explaining trends and proposing different theoretical approaches to analyse defence sector and its connections (influence) with state. Current dynamics of defence industry led to renewed debates over whether the increase of the military expenditure enhances or deteriorates economic growth and welfare of the state. There have been numerous studies done in defining military expenditure (also research and development programs in the military sector) impact on local and state economies. Regardless of different methodologies used (econometric analyses, macro econometric models, time series models, demand side model, supply side model, cross-country correlation analyses and historical case study) there was no strong evidence that military expenditure is likely to have the negative economic effects on states. Keywords: political economy, defence industry, military expenditure, defence.


Philosophy ◽  
1998 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 151-151

Royal Institute of Philosophy BursariesThe Royal Institute of Philosophy proposes to make available annually four bursaries of £1,000 each, to be awarded to students who are already on courses of postgraduate study (e.g. MA, MPhil, PhD, DPhil, BPhil) in British Universities.The aim of the scheme is to assist students of promise and of proven postgraduate ability to continue or complete their courses of study or dissertations. Each Bursary will last for one year and will not be renewable, although successful candidates from one year will be able to re-apply for a second bursary in a succeeding year (to a maximum of two bursaries in toto).In order to apply, a candidate must submit a CV, a 1-2 page account of his or her future research and/or programme of study and the names of two academic referees from the institution at which he or she is currently studying. At the end of their tenure of a bursary, successful candidates will be expected to make a report to the Royal Institute of Philosophy on their academic progress.Candidates will not normally be called for interview. In making the awards, the Royal Institute of Philosophy will attempt to select one candidate annually from each of the following subdivisions of philosophy:1. Epistemology, Metaphysics, Philosophy of Science2. Philosophical Logic, Philosophies of Mind and Language3. Moral and Political Philosophy4. Aesthetics, Philosophy of Religion, Law and History (These areas may be treated by reference to the History of Philosophy).The bursaries will run from the beginning to the end of the academic year and will begin in September 1998. Those who wish to apply for the 1998-99 awards should submit their applications by 1 May, 1998 to the Secretary, Royal Institute of Philosophy, 14, Gordon Square, London WC1H 0AG. Those applying will be notified of the decision of the Royal Institute of Philosophy in July, 1998.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document