Suchergebnisse

In his "History of economic analysis" Joseph A. Schumpeter emphasized the role of the sequence "Petty—Cantillon—Quesnay". Recent research has showed that it was Cantillon, whose contribution within this sequence was crucial. The article is devoted to the scientific legacy of the author of the "Essay on the nature of trade in general" — the first systemic treatise on economic theory in history; as well as to the impact it had on the subsequent development of economic thought. The topics under discussion include issues of method, ontological assumptions and ideological setting, theories of social reproduction, value and circulation of money, entrepreneurship, population and spatial development. It is argued that Cantillon's blueprint of theoretical economics provided a pattern for the formation of classical political economy and partly retained this role in the post-classic period. Cantillon's theoretical legacy can serve as a source of relevant lessons for theoretical economists and organizers of economic research until today.

The primary task for political economy of socialism was to elaborate a project of the new society. Looking forward into the future, that is positioning beyond current reality, was its mission, not a flaw, for which it is routinely blamed. At the same time, the future socialist society was thought through negation of capitalism as a system based on private property. Therefore, the theme of ownership was at the centre of the socialist project. Creating specific type of discourse was its component part. Sophistication in mastering its rules was a prerequisite of meaningful communication within this discourse. That's why the texts as artifacts of this discourse need to be deciphered today. In this paper, dealing with the history of Soviet economic debates about ownership, it is attempted to reveal most relevant, even if often implicit, meanings which leading Soviet political economists were aiming to express in their works. The authors analyse historical background of the Soviet ownership discourse, its formation in the early Soviet, as well as in Stalin's periods, competing research programmes of its transformation in the 1960s and 1970s, and its breakup at the turn of the 1990s.