Before Method and Models

Author(s):  
Ryan Walter

Before Method and Models offers a revisionist account of political economy in the time of Thomas Robert Malthus and David Ricardo, c. 1790–1823. In contrast to simply assuming that ‘classical political economy’ existed and provides the context for making sense of the writings of Malthus and Ricardo, this book recovers the circumstances that shaped their works. This leads the inquiry into the major political controversies of the time—the Bullion Controversy and the Corn Laws debate—and the texts with which Malthus and Ricardo attempted to intervene into these disputes. The results show that political economy was produced using ready-to-hand concepts and instruments, giving its practitioners great intellectual freedom. Yet political economy was also expected to act as a species of counsel to Parliament and resolve policy questions. In this context, the presumption of Malthus and Ricardo to style themselves as ‘theorists’ who possessed special intellectual capacities that set them above merely ‘practical’ writers attracted hostile responses from their contemporaries. The tenuous position of theory in this period was worsened by the intellectual aftermath of the French Revolution, which enabled the enemies of Malthus and Ricardo to portray their work as theoretical enthusiasm—as the product of undisciplined minds that had succumbed to the pleasures of system, utopia, and fanaticism. The attack and defence of political economy in this setting was conducted with the vocabulary of theory and practice, and the period thus stands as a time when reflection on commerce and politics was conducted without method and models.

2016 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Øjvind Larsen

Piketty’s Capital in Twenty-First Century has posed a totally new platform for the discussion of the economy and capitalism. Piketty has reinvented the classical political economy founded by Adam Smith in his 1776 Wealth of Nations. Piketty has shown via massive historical research how growth and inequality have developed since 1793. Piketty’s conclusion is that the French Revolution did not change the existing inequality either in the medium or in the long term. Piketty’s prediction is that a new form of global capitalism will arise, patrimonial capitalism, in which inequality will develop further and the 1% of the World population will control 95% of all wealth in the World.


2021 ◽  
pp. 31-66
Author(s):  
Ryan Walter

This chapter establishes a new context for reading the political economy of Malthus and Ricardo. It is the extended debate over the role of theory and practice in politics and political reform, a contest that Edmund Burke launched by publishing his hostile response to the French Revolution, Reflections on the Revolution in France (1790). In attempting to defend theory, both Mackintosh and Stewart engaged in sophisticated rhetoric that attempted to portray Burke’s veneration of custom and usage as philosophically naïve at the same time as they insisted on the necessity of theory for a science of politics. It is in these defensive postures that both Mackintosh and Stewart came to articulate the idea of a ‘theorist’ of politics.


2021 ◽  
pp. 219-230
Author(s):  
Ryan Walter

This Conclusion closes the study by summarizing the account of political economy that has been developed, which is intended to replace the standard accounts of ‘classical political economy’. The premise motivating this alternative account is that it is unacceptable to simply assume that classical political economy existed. By studying the major controversies of the period, the forms of argument active in them, and the reception of Smith’s Wealth of Nations in the doctrinal contests between Malthus and Ricardo, it was not possible to support the claim that such a unity existed. Instead, the evidence suggests that political economy was an ill-defined staging ground for contests spilling out of parliamentary debate. This is why the vast majority of texts represent attempts to supervene on policy. These texts—including those by Malthus and Ricardo—were almost always produced using ready-to-hand concepts and instruments. That is, political economy was constructed with great freedom, without intellectual specialization, and in dialogue with the controversies of the day. Moreover, it did not possess its own vocabulary or methods and was even construed as a species of political metaphysics of the same type thought to have caused the French Revolution. In such a context, theoretical speculation concerning commercial life was neither a prestigious nor an accepted form of behaviour, and both Malthus and Ricardo went to elaborate lengths to justify ‘theory’. This circumstance represents a major discontinuity between their time and ours.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 381-409 ◽  
Author(s):  
RYAN WALTER

Britons viewed speculative thinking as a primary cause of the French Revolution and the disorders that followed. In this context, Edmund Burke and others identified a form of enthusiasm that was theoretical, not religious, in nature, but which also corrupted reasoning to disastrous effect. This article investigates how this accusation was made against David Ricardo and his political economy, and the variable defences that he deployed. The result is to uncover the language that was used to appraise political economy in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, along with the intellectual disciplines that were prescribed to protect economic reasoning from falling into fantasy.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document