Defination of Political Economy

Political Economy

The term political economy came into general use in the eighteenth century and meant the measures taken by governments to regulate trade, exchange money and taxes (roughly what would now be called economic policy). By a natural progression the term came to be applied to the study of these and other economic questions; political economy became a recognized academic profession and was increasingly considered a science. In some places (Scottish universities, for example) it is still the term normally used to denote what is elsewhere more usually called economics. But, especially under the influence of W.S. Jevons (1879; 1905) and Alfred Marshall (1890), ‘economics’ had for the most part replaced ‘political economy’ by the end of the nineteenth century, although some economists continued to distinguish between the two, reserving the term political economy for questions of policy (e.g. Robbins 1939).

The most significant distinctions to have been made between the two terms have, however, been associated with the history of Marxism. In 1843 Engels, shortly to become Marx’s close collaborator, published an article with the title ‘The outlines of a critique of political economy’ (Engels 1975 {1844}). He argued that the new economic thinking, favoring competition and free trade, which began with Adam Smith, was ‘half an advance’ on the mercantilism which had gone before, but, by not questioning private property, was guilty of covering up the fact that capitalism necessarily led to social and economic evils. Such ‘sophistry and hypocrisy’ tended to increase with time so that Ricardo was more guilty than Smith, and Mill more guilty than Ricardo.

Over the next thirty-five years, Marx, in his own economic writings, greatly enlarged, deepened and refined this critique in works such as Contribution to a critique of Political Economy Marx (1976 {1859}), which itself bears the subtitle, A Critique of political economy. By political economy Marx meant the body of economic thinking which began with Adam smith and included Ricardo, Malthus and others, roughly corresponding to what are now known as the classical economists. In using the term, Marx was not departing from the general usage known as the classical economists. In using the term, Marx was not departing from the general usage of the day but his critique paved the way for a change in meaning.

Marx was both a strong critic and an admirer of the tradition of political economy, especially of Smith and Ricardo. But he distinguished the honest, if sometimes mistaken, pursuit of truth by some political economists and those increasingly abundant economic writings whose purpose was merely to legitimize capitalism (which he sometimes called ‘vulgar economics’). Marx and Engels believed that political economy as a science arose alongside capitalism: because the exploitative nature of pre-capitalist economic systems was transparent, they did not require a science to explain them, merely an ideology (generally a religion) to legitimize them; but, since the nature of capitalist exploitation was opaque (being hidden behind the veil of money and market relations), it needed its own economic science (political economy) to reveal it.

For Marx, a truly scientific political economy, in order to reveal this hidden exploitation, must study not only exchange but also the nature of production and labor. Vulgar economics concealed capitalist exploitation by treating all relations as exchange it was therefore, an ideology rather than a science. Marx came apparently to recognize in classical political economy slightly more than Engel’s ‘half an advance’ and dated its definitive vulgarization a little later than Engels had done in 1844.

This distinction between (scientific) political economy and (vulgar) economics has been a constant in critical, and especially Marxist, economic thinking. But there have been moments when the vocabulary has acquired a special importance. The revival of Marxist economic analysis in Western Europe and the USA from the late 1950s onwards took the term political economy as a kind of symbol. This reflected both the desire to re-emphasize methodological differences with an increasingly rampant (vulgar) economics and also the need for a code name in places, such as the exceptional flowering of articles, books and university courses bearing the title of The Political Economy of... (a tendency strongly influenced by Baran 1957). Although this political economy expressed a renewed interest in the questions and methods of the classical economics and of Marx, the use of the term became increasingly loose, often simply denting economic analysis which introduces non-economic (especially political) factors.

In this looser sense the term has come to have attractions for anyone whose view of economic life extends beyond the confines imposed by much orthodox economics. Since around 1980 the term political economy has spread on an unprecedented scale, partly losing its association with Marxism. The growing fields of international political economy, for instance, tends to see political economy rather eclectically as a set of questions in which politics and economics are enmeshed and which can be answered via differing ideological approaches – liberal, nationalist, Marxist and others (see Gilpin 1987). On the other hand, some economists, without describing what they do as political economy have concerned themselves increasingly with the kinds of issues which preoccupied the classical political economists, such as the relationship between the design of wage and labor systems and the profitability of capital (Bowles 1985). In these ways the distinction between political economy and economics is becoming more blurred.

The term has also undergone a number of mutations. In the USA political economics is sometimes preferred, as in the organization, the Union of Radical Political Economics and its Review of Radical Political Economics. Of more recent coinage is ‘political ecology’, an attempt to apply some of the methods of political economy, especially in its Marxist sense, to ecological questions. More confusingly, political economy is being used to connote the economic and political characteristics of a political place (country, city, region). References to such concepts as ‘the European political economy’ (as a replacement for ‘the European economy’) are becoming increasingly common but have almost no relationship common but have almost no relationship to earlier, more analytical meanings and simply raise the level of incoherence in the use of the term.

Nepal and it's political environment

A country once known as the country of brave Gorkhali, the country where lord Buddha born, where ariniko was born, where the Highest peak,Mount Everest, of the world lies, the country of the the great Himalayas etc. is Nepal. It is a kind of country where every kind of people are found and where every individual lives as brother and sisters (with harmony). A country where every people from every culture respects others culture's festival, where if one individual who is guest are treated as VIP. A country which is rich in natural resources and is like a heaven in the world map.
Every one might be surprised to know why i began writing this way. It is because it is all the facts i have mentioned above has become once upon a time. Now every thing has changed. As we know every thing undergoes certain kind of changes whether it may take few years or many years. Every one know that it has taken millions and millions of years for development of human civilization in the world history. For any country it may take many years to get developed. But it very different in case of Nepal. Once Nepal was like a heaven, prosperous and developing in positive manner. But the process of destruction have become so fast that no one have ever imagined that so fact Nepal would be developed in the process of producing pollution, polluting water resources, and involved in internal conflicts.
Above mentioned facts are true and the main factor for this is those individuals who are being elected by the citizens of this country and their desire to be power so that they can rule the country and collect as much amount of nation's budget for them-self. No one among the political parties are free from corruption and self oriented. No one cares about the countries development and betterment of the countries economic, political environment, increase the life standard of the local individual, increase the countries economic activities, tourism, trade etc. Every one just cares is about how to collect as much amount as they can possibly collect for their own enjoyment. Every party says that we are the representatives of the nation so we should care about the nations development by in reality every one is just saying those just to get to the power.
Due to the political instability and conflicts among the parties non of the activities which are productive have been able to be done. When one party tries to one thing then another party will try to disturb that parties work by organizing bandas, chakka jams, riots, etc. and say that our party is always in the support of development and people's prosperity.

Political environment and development

For the development of any country the country should have to be strong from the security point of view, economic point of view, cultural point of view, tourism point of view etc. Most of all the country should have sound political environment for the development of any country. Only those countries which have sound political environment can develop easily because each and every factors are directly or indirectly related to the political environment and its components.
Stability in political environment means good business environment, proper understanding between all the political parties, all the different types of communities and the people representing them. If there is misunderstanding between the people representing different groups of ethnic group, society, group of people, district, etc then there arises the problem of political conflict resulting into formation of unstable environment where if one party tries to do anything good then another individual will try to oppose all the action done by that individual party.
In any country if there are only two parties then the pr0blem of conflict arises very rarely but if in any country there are more than two party then obviously there will be the problem of conflict among the different individual representing the different parties as a leader. As we know that every person tries to become the head of the country and his all works are directed towards the achievement of the post as the head of the country/nation. So he will do what ever he can do to come to power, it may be by staying in the opposition and disturbing the development activities or by not cooperating with the governing party for the accomplishment of that parties motto or work.
Every thing an individual or any individual country tries to accomplish is by the construction of different types of project, introducing new type of technology so that the people of that country can benefits from that. But what ever may be the reason the main thing required for the introduction of any alternatives is money. For this if the countries economic sector is flourishing then only the country will have sufficient funds for the development works, the countries money income will remain inside the country and all the produced goods will be consumed the ordinary users by paying little amount. But if the business activities are hampered/disturbed then all the big industries will slowly by slowly close down and then the country will have to dependent on foreign goods. When the import will increase then surely the countries budget will go outside of the country and the country will be more poorer and poorer.
So in order to develop any country the political condition should be stable and only all other environment will flourish easily.

Politics

Kate Miller defined politics as any power-structured relationship in which one group of persons is controlled by another. Contemporary feminists refuse to use traditional political concepts (for example, the concept of political delegation, or vicarious politics) and prefer a concept of personalized politics. See Mies (1983).
Liberal feminism is based on a politics of antidiscrimination and opposes laws that establish different rights for women and for men. Liberal feminism accepts that many established political procedures such as universal suffrage, free elections or freedom of assembly, are adequate to eradicate discrimination. The goal of socialist feminist politics, on the other hand, is to abolish these socially constituted categories and develop a form of political with the political practice which can link the personal with the political. Socialist feminism criticizes the ways centralized forms of political organization replicate sexual and other divisions in the larger society. One alternative to centralized politics is participatory democracy where decisions are made by everyone. However, Sheila Rowbotham, and others, suggests that this form of politics is problematic unless everyone has a respect for the other’s experience. See Rowbotham (1979).
Structural functional analysis shows that political socialization, or the process by which a person acquires a political repertoire, occurs through sex roles and childhood experiences with father figures and authority patterns. Hence the goal of radical feminist politics is for women to deconstruct this past and gain control over our own bodies. A radical feminist politics will build a feminist culture in a new society of women-dentered spaces. However, the politics of separatism, Black feminist claim, ignores the way working-class and Black women political interest in common with men. See Combahee River Collective (1981).