Re: The Prize by Any Other Name

[Clifford Poirot <cpoirot@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It is not that I mind this discussion, or that I personally think it is
irrelevant to PK thought-but I do want to say that it seems to me that we
are arguing a proposition that most readers of the JPKE and/or the JEI would
consider self-evident. That's not to say what we consider self-evident
should not be challenged. But if we are going to discuss this, I would
prefer not to have to rehash the entire formalist/substantivist debate of
the 1960's and see if we can direct it towards some concrete relevance for
Post-Keynesianism.

Your question about economic dynamics after the fall of Rome is so vague as
to be nearly impossible to answer. But I find it hard to believe that the
sacking of Rome was motivated by a desire to improve the overall efficiency
of markets-though clearly, it was for the economic betterment of those doing
the sacking!

I would suggest George Duby "The Early Growth of the European Economy" as an
excellent source of material for understanding the "economy" of Europe prior
to the high middle ages. There is also an extensive debate in the British
Journal "Past and Present" in the 1970's about the relevant importance of
demographic, social and market variables in the rise of capitalism.

And again, I would like to point out, that in "Structure and Change" and
also in his earlier work (The Rise of the Western World) North started out
with this model of a "natural" tendency for the market to grow, coupled with
growth in population. But he abandoned this model in his 1991 work
"Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance". That is not
to say his approach is above criticism from an Institutionalist perspective
(as I have pointed out).

You seem to want to adopt a model that is plus formaliste que les
formalistes!

-----Original Message-----
From: Harry L Cook [mailto:hlc710@xxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 8:01 PM
To: Clifford Poirot
Cc: 'pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: Re: The Prize by Any Other Name


Do you think that we can leave out the desire for economic improvement
as basic in the dynamics of economic processes after the fall of Rome?
What would be other elements equally fundamental besides population
increase?

If it can be assumed for all practical purposes that the desire for
economic betterment is a basic part of human nature for most people,
then could we not say that consequences that logically follow from that
are in a sense natural  It seems to me that there is a logical
connection between the desire for economic betterment and the
development of money, markets, technology and so on

 The naturalness of market society was a conclusion, not an assumption.

					Harry L. Cook
Clifford Poirot wrote:
>
> Well, the problem is beginning with the assumption that economic processes
> after the fall of Rome are motivated primarily by desire for improvement
> between the wishes of buyers and sellers. If you begin with the assumption
> of the "naturalness" of market society, of course you can trace its
> evolution teleologically. Just as if one begins with the assumption of the
> "naturalness" or inevitablity of the current human form, one can see
modern
> sapiens sapiens as a natural extension of the earliest hominid, and thus
> ignore the possibility of different and contingent evolutionary paths.
>
> Even Douglas North has entirely abandoned this "hard core" formalist
> explanation of economic history.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harry L Cook [mailto:hlc710@xxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 1:52 PM
> To: Bruce McFarling
> Cc: pkt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: The Prize by Any Other Name
>
> I guess it depends on what we are trying to explain.  I think that it is
> useful and it makes sense to me for practical policy purposes to see
> capitalism as a "natural" culmination of a very long period of
> evolutionary development.  If you begin after the
> fall of Rome and with nothing much more that the desire for economic
> betterment for both buyers and sellers and population growth you can, to
> my satisfaction, analytically trace the development and evolution of
> money, markets and the development of trade, financial institutions,
> technology, competition, saving and investment and so on, to the end of
> the Middle Ages, through the Mercantile period in England and then the
> Industrial Revolution.  I think that this interpretation  gives some
> insight into capitalism as a system, both its strengths and weaknesses.
> The only issue for me is whether or not this is a useful interpretation.
>                                         Harry L. Cook
> >
> > At 09:00 27/11/01 -0800, Harry L Cook wrote:
> > >My point was that modern capitalism is a system made up of
> > >several independent institutions - money, banks, markets -
> > >and long driven by the incentive for economic improvement,
> > >that developed and evolved quite naturally throughout most
> > >of the Middle Ages.  They all began to come together as
> > >the Middle Ages gave way to the modern era and climaxed
> > >with the Industrial Revolution in England.
> >
> > My point was that this story ignores the fact that most
> > of the commercial institutions evolved outside of the
> > economic backwater of Europe and was brought in ... but
> > of course that just changes the range of economic
> > histories that you have to look at to understand the
> > process, it is still an evolving process.
> >
> > Polyani's point was that the inviability of the system
> > came about from the extension of commercial logic to
> > the determination of the major portion of the communities
> > labour and the major portion of the communities use of
> > natural resources.  Pointing out that the commercial
> > practices developed prior to taking over the major
> > role with respect to those two "fictitious commodities",
> > and that the adoption of commercial practices for
> > those fictitious commodities was itself an ongoing process
> > rather than a single event, doesn't really address
> > Polyani's argument about why the nineteenth century system
> > was inviable.  And *of course* there were outpost of
> > more developed economic systems in Europe, just as there
> > are outposts of more developed economic systems in almost
> > any less developed economy today.
> >
> > Virtually,
> >
> > Bruce McFarling, Shortland, NSW
> > ecbm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx