Re: The Prize by Any Other Name

[Harry L Cook <hlc710@xxxxxxxx>]

All of my discussion applied specifically after the fall of Rome.

Clifford Poirot wrote:
>
> 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