Summary: Essence of the theory of national economy. Friedrich List

In Friedrich List's classic " National system political economy» describes the conditions under which protectionism, according to the author, will contribute to the country's transition to a higher level of economic development. The concept of List is based on the five-term theory of stages of economic development and the theory of productive forces, developed as a counterweight to the theory of classical political economy of Adam Smith and his followers, which List called the theory of exchange values.

List develops the theory of educational duties put forward by A. Hamilton, depicting customs duties as a temporary phenomenon, like crutches that should help industry get on its feet, for a country that is limited to agriculture alone is like a man without one arm. Industry gives the state an infinite predominance over a purely agrarian country; the absence of industry cripples the very Agriculture.

At the same time, the author points out that protectionism is far from always beneficial, and the ultimate goal for List still remains free trade, but already “beneficial” to the country that has achieved the perfect development of productive forces with the help of protectionism.

As appendices, this edition includes three reviews of the 1st edition of 1891 and a chapter devoted to the analysis of the work of F. Liszt from the master's thesis of Balthasar Kalinovsky (1827-1884), defended in 1859 at St. Petersburg University.

Foreword

Introduction

Book one

HISTORY

Chapter I. Italians

Chapter II. Hanseatic

Chapter III. Dutch

Chapter IV. English

Chapter V. The Spaniards and the Portuguese

Chapter VI. French people

Chapter VII. Germans

Chapter VIII. Russians

Chapter IX. North Americans

Chapter X. The Lessons of History

book two

THEORY

Chapter XI. Political and cosmopolitan economy

Chapter XII. The theory of productive forces and the theory of values

Chapter XIII. National division of labor and association of the country's productive forces

Chapter XIV. Private economy and political economy

Chapter XV. Nationality and the economy of nations

Chapter XVI. People's state economy, political and national economy

Chapter XVII. Factory industry and personal social and political national productive forces

Chapter XVIII. Factory industry and the natural productive forces of the nation

Chapter XIX. Factory industry and the instrumental forces or material capital of the country

Chapter XX. Factory industry and agricultural interests

Chapter XXI. Factory industry and trade

Chapter XXII. Factory industry, merchant shipping, maritime power and colonization

Chapter XXIII. Factory industry and instruments of money circulation

Chapter XXIV. Factory industry and the principle of self-preservation of progress

Chapter XXV. The manufacturing industry and the means that stimulate production and consumption

Chapter XXVI. Customs, as the main means for planting and strengthening the internal factory industry

Chapter XXVII. Customs and mainstream economics

Book Three

SYSTEMS

Chapter XXVIII. Italian economists

CHAPTER XXIX. industrial system

(erroneously called the mercantile school)

Chapter XXX. School of physiocrats, or system of agriculture

CHAPTER XXXI. The system of exchange values ​​(which the school erroneously calls the industrial system)

CHAPTER XXXII. The System of Exchange Values ​​(Continued)

Book Four

POLICY

CHAPTER XXXIII. Island domination and continental states - North America and France.

CHAPTER XXXIV. Island domination and the German trade union

CHAPTER XXXV. Continental politics

CHAPTER XXXVI. Trade policy of the German Customs Union

Applications

Review in "Russian Bulletin"

Review in the Northern Bulletin

Review: in Vestnik Evropy

B. KALINOVSKII. Critical analysis of List's work "Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie"

The theory of the customs union F. List

Theories of the customs union are the most developed direction in the research of integration processes in modern scientific literature.

There is an economic theory of the customs union, first developed in the 19th century by a lawyer, philosopher, economist Friedrich von List. In his book The National Economy, List argues with Riccardo and Smith, liberal economists. According to Smith and Riccardo, if two countries remove customs barriers between themselves and completely free foreign trade, then this leads to an equilibrium economic level life in both countries. List said that this is not the case in practice, because when we see this kind of unwinding of the division of labor, the hardest and least paid labor moves to the underdeveloped country, and the developed country reaps the dividends. With the removal of any customs barriers, a disproportionate development of economies results: the rich get richer, the poor get poorer. But if a state that lags behind in economic development, does not participate in foreign trade at all, it also degrades. List suggested a third way: neither integration nor isolation, when the country cannot be fully opened, but it is also impossible not to open. This was called a customs union. Thus, the philosophy of the customs union is to unite the maximum number of economies of countries with a similar level of development, with common cultural and historical values, and to enter into foreign trade with such a wide front, very reasonably controlling what passes through the borders of the customs union . That is, the complete release of the economy, including trade, transport tariffs within the customs union and the installation of a filter at its border. This means some kind of globalization, that is, openness in foreign trade, but not complete, but relative.

One of the first milestones in the theory of the customs union was Jacob Wiener(JacobViner, 1892-1970) - the son of Romanian emigrants, Canadian by birth, American by citizenship, a representative of the new classicism of the Chicago school of economics, one of the first economists who dealt mainly with international economics. Among students, Wiener became famous as a very demanding professor. According to legend, he once asked a question concerning the dynamic and static effects of the customs union, which the student could not answer, but Viner insisted on giving him a high mark. To the bewilderment expressed in connection with this by fellow professors, Wiener unequivocally remarked: “But no one could say anything reasonable about this!”

Wiener's idea, at a time when there was vigorous debate in Europe about possible integration, following the example of the Benelux already in place since 1948, was sobering: the impact of a customs union on welfare and international trade is uncertain, it can be favorable or unfavorable. It all depends on the balance of trade creation and trade deflection effects. After the elimination of the tariff on mutual trade, there will be goods that one of the member countries of the union will now import from the other, although previously it did not import them at all, since the price of protected domestic products was lower than the price of any foreign supplier, taking into account customs duties. There will be a shift in the distribution of production between the two countries from higher cost producers to lower cost producers. Other goods will, after the formation of the union, be imported by one of the countries - members of the union from another country, while before the creation of the union they were imported by it from some third country that offered them the cheapest even taking into account duties. In this case, there is a shift in the distribution of production not between the two members of the union, but between a third country, where production costs are low, and a country - a member of the union with higher production costs. There will be a shift in the distribution of production from the lower cost producer to the higher cost producer. The end result of the customs union depends on which of the tendencies prevails. Wiener lists seven conditions under which the positive effects of a customs union must outweigh the negative effects. These terms, with minor modifications, are still cited to this day when analyzing the possible economic impact of a growing number of multilateral and bilateral preferential trade agreements.

Wiener singled out two main effects from the creation of the TS:

- Trade creation effect (trade-creatingeffect). Formation of a new flow of imports of goods that were not imported at all before from a partner country in the customs union as a result of the fact that after the elimination of customs duties, the imported goods became cheaper than the national ones;

PLOTNIKOVA T.N.

"NATIONAL ECONOMY"

TUTORIAL.

ABAKAN 2008

INTRODUCTION

Well national economy contains general issues related to country and historical specificity. Mastering the knowledge of this course will allow not only to better assess the past and current state of the national economy of Russia, but also to determine the approach to its future. The very concept of "national economy" is the result of the centuries-old development of the national economic complex of the country. Such a complex is distinguished by the unity and integrity of reproduction, including the geographical position of the country, its natural resources and the national composition of the population, the state demographic situation, the federal structure of the state. The development of globalization changes a lot in the development and interaction of the national and world economies. The number and influence of multinational corporations is growing, which have many contradictions with the government different countries. Significant changes are taking place in the modern Russian economy: the structure of production and exports is changing significantly, priorities are being adjusted, and the stratification in the population is quite deep. Most of these problems are discussed in the relevant topics. The lecture notes highlight several key areas in matters of national development and national security. The purpose of studying the course of the national economy is to form an idea of ​​the functioning of the country's economic system, to determine the model and strategy for the socio-economic development of Russia. Studying the course of the national economy gives necessary knowledge for qualitative and quantitative forecasting of economic development rates. The main sections of the course are: basic economic indicators, intersectoral complexes, foundations of state and market self-regulation, social foundations of the national economy.

1. GENERAL OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS

NATIONAL ECONOMY

1.1 THE CONCEPT OF THE NATIONAL ECONOMY F. LIST

The theoretical concept of the national economy was formulated by a German economist of the first half 19th century Friedrich List (1789–1846) in his National System of Political Economy. He distinguished between national and cosmopolitan economies , "which teaches how the whole human race can secure its well-being." The scientist introduced into economic science the idea of ​​national features of the economy, the study of which should be the science of national economy. F. List tried to prove that free trading is goodonly for very developed countries and for lagging behind lykh states. Countries with an average level of economic development need protectionist policies (for example, Russia and Germany). Instead of the principle economic freedom» scientist put forward the principle of "industrial education of the nation". The nation is seen as complete system in terms of language, customs, historical development and governmentstva. The economy is a secondary component of developmentnation. F. List believes that individual generations must sacrifice their well-being for the development and preservation of the nation. Healso proposes to revive protectionist policies, defendingunderdeveloped sectors of the economy. The main disadvantageclassical system is that it promotes individualism and cosmopolitanism, leaving economics beyond analysis.chesky problems of the nation. A German scientist developed the idea that a country lagging behindbarking in economic development, should not use today'sexperience of countries that have achieved some success, and their experience in the past,when their economy was in a deplorable state. He recognizes the main factor in the emergence of land rentnot differences in land fertility, but remoteness from markets. Differences in economic policy states dependfrom them geographical location. Thus, England, due to her insular position, as well as the fact that she does not need a largearmy, needs free trade. For Germany, the free trade foreign policyher trade will be negative, which, bringcaused by free foreign trade are less significant than the the harm it incurs. In 2007, Russia ranked 11th in the world and 6th in Europe in terms ofGDP - $ 979.1 billion or 26.621 trillion. rub. (USSR in 1950 occupied2nd place; Russian Empire in 1913 - 5th). In terms of GDPin terms of purchasing power parity RF closes mi straight ten. In 2006 was reached GDP growth on 6.6% (49th in the world). In terms of GDP per capita, the Russian Federation is in 59th place. The level in 2007 was 8.5% (in 2006 - 9%; in 2000 - 20%). 58.2% of GDP is created in the service sector, the industry gives 36.6%, the agricultural sector gives 5.3%. The volume of the Russian labor force is 73.88 million people. Below the poverty line is 7.8% of the population; 60.1% of employees are employed in the service sector; 21.9% - in industry; 10.8% in agriculture. The unemployment rate is 6.6%. Main IndustriesRussian economy: miningmechanical engineering (heavy, general, medium, as well as the production of instruments, tools, machine tools), ferrous and non-ferrous metallurgy,crown industry; shipbuilding; building; forest promentality, textile production; food industry. ExportRF in 2006 amounted to $301.9 billion. Russia's main export partners: the Netherlands - 11.8%, Italy - 8.3%, Germany - 8.1%. The volume of Russian imports is $137.5 billion. The main import partners are: Germany - 13.6%, China - 9.3% and Ukraine - 6.6%. The most important types of exported products: crude oil - 33.9% of total exports; oil products - 14.8%; natural gas - 14.5%. The main imported goods: machinery and equipment (except cars) - 35.7%; cars– 9.2%; medicines - 2.9%. State debt RF in 2006 amounted to 1028 billion rubles. The size external debt– $52 billion budget equaled $222.2 billion,expenses - $157.3 billion. Specific crop weight(agriculture) in the total volume ofagricultural production - 40%; accordingly, 60% of the product in the agricultural sector falls on the share of industry.Major crops: grain, sugar beet, sunflower, potato, flax. Retail turnover RF in 2006 amounted to 6.934 trillion. rub.of which stationary trade accounted for 79%, market tradehowl - 21%. The share of food products in the total tradeturnover is 46%, the share of non-food products is 54%. Overall volume investment spending in 2006 amounted to $ 121 billion,of which foreign - $ 53.65 billion.

As of 2007 Russian Federation has the following indicators:

- population - 144 million people;

- area - 17098 thousand square meters. km;

- GNI - 489 billion dollars;

– population growth rate – 0.5%;

– poverty level – 31% of the population;

– life expectancy – 65 years;

- fertility rate (number of women in labor per 1 woman) - 1.3;

- GDP - 581 billion dollars;

– annual GDP growth rate – 7.1%;

– stock market- 46.1% of GDP;

- defense spending - 3.9% of GDP;

- forest area - 8088 thousand square meters; km;

– energy consumption per capita – 4424 kg of oil equivalent.

PAGE_BREAK--

CHAPTER 1

CRITICISM OF THE PRINCIPLE OF FREEDOM OF EXCHANGE AND "INDUSTRIAL EDUCATION OF THE NATION"

In 1837, being in his third and last emigration, F. List, with all the passion inherent in all his activities, devoted himself to the study of political economy. The result of his work was first an extensive manuscript entitled The Natural System of Political Economy, submitted to a competition announced by the French Academy and published only at the beginning of the 20th century, and then his main work, The National System of Political Economy, published in Augsburg at the beginning of 1841.

List conceived his book as the first volume of an extensive work, which was supposed to cover all the problems of political economy. The book was therefore subtitled "International Trade, Trade Policy and the German Customs Union". But List's ambitious plan remained unfulfilled. The National System was a considerable success, and two more editions were needed in the coming years. She played an important role in the heated discussions around the problems of economic development and trade policy in Germany and had a serious influence on German economic thought.

List developed his favorite idea: the path to the prosperity and unification of Germany lay through the growth of industry, and German industry needed to be protected from strong foreign competition through high import duties and other means of commercial policy. Most of all, this idea suited the growing industrial bourgeoisie of the West and South of Germany. Moreover, despite the thinker's curtsies to the nobility, the general spirit of his book was the spirit of progressive reforms. The reforms he proposed were cautious and half-hearted, but in the musty air of Germany in the 40s, these ideas sounded almost radical.

List's ideas of restricting the freedom of trade unmistakably found their enemies. The economist's proposals affected the mercantile interests of the Prussian Junkers, who exported grain in significant quantities to England and were willing to agree to the duty-free import of English manufactured goods to Germany in exchange for the freedom to export German grain to England. The old caste of the merchant bourgeoisie of the North German cities was also interested in "freedom of trade". Thus, the ideas of the German economist quickly moved from the plane of academic disputes to a real battle between narrow corporate interests and pressure groups with the pressing needs of national development.

In his writings, F. List acted as a critic classical school, the embodiment of which for him was A. Smith. However, his criticism did not actually affect the foundations of the teachings of the classics - the theory of value and income. These areas of List's economic theory did not particularly interest him. All his interest was focused on issues of economic policy, moreover, mainly on issues of foreign trade policy.

List dubbed Smith's system of political economy cosmopolitan. He accused this system of not seeing national characteristics economic development of individual countries and dogmatically imposes on them uniform "natural" laws and rules of economic policy. "As characteristic difference of the system put forward by me,” Liszt wrote, “I affirm nationality. My whole edifice rests on the nature of the nation as a middle member between the individual and humanity."

Different nations, List says, are at different stages of development. Under these conditions, complete freedom of trade between them, perhaps, would provide some abstract benefit for the world economy as a whole from the point of view of exchange values, i.e. essentially labor costs, but would hinder the development of productive forces in the backward countries. He sometimes called his concept the theory of productive forces as opposed to A. Smith's "theory of exchange values". For List, the productive forces are a set of social conditions, without which there can be no "wealth of the nation." And in this sense, F. List turned out to be more analytical than K. Marx, who saw in the productive forces only a set of tools and means of labor in combination with labor power.

In order to draw idle resources into production, in order to overcome backwardness, it is permissible and necessary to develop industries in which labor productivity is currently lower than abroad. F. List wrote: "This loss of value must, therefore, be regarded only as the price for the industrial education of the nation." The development of industry was the alpha and omega of the views of the German economist. He repeatedly noted that a nation that is engaged only in agriculture is like a person who has only one hand to work. List proposed to speed up the growth of industry with the help of educational protectionism - a system of state measures that protect national industry from foreign competition until it will stand on its feet and will not be able to compete with foreigners on an equal footing.

He pushed the implementation of free trade to a rather indefinite future, when all the major nations would be approximately at the same level of development.

The authoritative English researcher of the history of economic thought L. Robbins in his work “The Theory of Economic Development in the History of Economic Thought” says: “Long before Marshall economic effects were at the center of List's various researches on the question of the development of the productive forces. List was a stormy, tragic personality, full of romantic prejudices and prone to wild exaggerations, and his distortion of the ideas of his intellectual opponents, especially Adam Smith, was almost comical because of its fallacy. But, freed from noise and fury, his thesis contains a grain of truth: the stimulation of certain industries in specific historical conditions can lead to an increase in productive potential that cannot be measured only by the value of known products or the increase in the cost of capital.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK-- CHAPTER 2 NATIONAL PROTECTIONISM F. LIST

The theory of national protectionism by F. List did not arise as an abstract idea that the German thinker decided to express himself in an original way. For its appearance, there was a peculiar socio-cultural and historical environment.

From the XVIII century. German political economy inherited cameralistics, a method that arose in medieval universities for a descriptive presentation of the entire sum of the social sciences, with an emphasis on the theory and practice of government. The official economic doctrine was mercantilism - even when in England and France it had already completely exhausted itself. At the beginning of the XIX century. Smith's ideas take root in Germany, and as a result, a peculiar mixture of Smithianism and old-fashioned cameralism emerges.

“The founder of this “specific German” political economy was F. List, who opposed classical bourgeois political economy with its idea of ​​free trade and state non-intervention in economic life its system of the so-called national economy, which preached the need for the introduction of prohibitive customs duties and active assistance to the private sector from the state.

Early 19th century in Germany - a period of turbulent political events and economic transformation. The Napoleonic conquest leads in the kingdoms and principalities that made up Germany to breaking feudal relations. The personal dependence of serfs is abolished. City craft workshops are disintegrating. But even after the Napoleonic Wars, Germany remained an economically backward and politically fragmented country.

In terms of economic development, Germany lagged far behind England and even France. By 1840, the population of Germany was approximately equal to the population of England (about 27 million people), but Germany mined 14 times less coal, smelted 8 times less iron, processed 16 times less than England. Nevertheless, the industrial growth of Germany was quite fast, especially after the 1834 Customs Union economic unification of the German states.

Thus, the German political economy of the 20s-40s, which grew out of the depths of cameralistics, was not able to answer the urgent questions that arose before the national economy and society. Under these conditions, F. Liszt appeared. His theory state protectionism turned out to be very useful, especially given the economic weakness in the face of the then world leader - Great Britain, the old economic rival France and the increasingly assertive United States.

However, realizing the rationality market system, F. Liszt did not dare to openly fight the freedom of trade. He made curtsies to the English classics of political economy. However, under the flag of liberalism, F. List carries out a kind of apology for the swelling of the bureaucratic apparatus of the state: “... nowhere did labor and thrift, the spirit of ingenuity and enterprise of individuals, create anything great where they did not find support in civil freedom, institutions and laws, in state administration and foreign policy but mainly in national unity and power.

Thus, from the above conclusion it follows that it is not the state apparatus that is supported by material production, but, on the contrary, a strong state power generates productive forces. Thus, F. List reveals significant differences in his conceptual attitudes from the theoretical postulates of A. Smith and D. Ricardo on productive labor.

Now it remains to show the sophistry of the last argument of F. List in favor of strengthening the power of the state over all spheres public life, and above all over the economy and trade. After all, F. List stood up for a strong state in order to protect bourgeois freedoms. Indeed, the ideologists of the bourgeois revolutions believed. That the state should ensure freedom of enterprise and trade. But to provide is by no means to interfere. “Thus,” List writes, “history teaches that restrictive measures are not so much the invention of thoughtful minds, but the result of the development of interests and the desire of science for independence and supremacy ...”.

List's theory was an attempt to answer the most important question: how can the economic backwardness of countries be eliminated within the framework of a market economy, due to the peculiarities of their history and economy, which find themselves in the back ranks of the "world community"?

CHAPTER 3
F. LIST AND MODERNITY: FREEDOM OF TRADE OR PROTECTIONISM?
continuation
--PAGE_BREAK -- F. Liszt's theoretical constructions are not indisputable and not contradictory. But with all this, the ideas of the German ideologist of national protectionism turned out to be tenacious, moreover, almost the entire twentieth century passed in serious clashes, both supporters and opponents of unlimited freedom of trade and protectionism. Moreover, clashes on these issues did not proceed not only, and not so much in the plane of narrowly academic disputes of armchair thinkers, but almost everywhere took the form of violent clashes in the field of external and domestic policy certain states.
It is quite obvious, and this was convincingly argued and defended by the Nobel laureate in economics, Friedrich Arthur von Hayek, that the lack of freedom of trade is not only a blockage of the circulatory system of the economic organism, a drop in its efficiency, the cause of the poverty of peoples, but also the formation of conditions for rampant violence against the individual. . Depriving citizens of economic freedom and transferring all economic rights to the state apparatus instantly deprives a person of personal benefit, and then social system, deprived of a carrot, mercilessly exploits the whip. As soon as the state replaces the right of a person to freely trade with the principle of distributing from the center, a sea of ​​blood immediately appears, whether it be Western European France, Nazi Germany, Eastern European Russia or purely Eastern Cambodia. That is why freedom of trade, concludes a prominent Austrian economist, is not only an economic but also a moral category.

Indeed, the philosophy of the market is rational and cannot be refuted by formal logic. An irrational method is needed. Therefore, any doctrines of a planned centralized economy that deny freedom of trade are based on an irrational philosophy that replaces formal logic with dialectics, mysticism, sophisms, and fights against the humanistic principles of Christianity by any means, up to militant atheism.

But at the same time, it was a great simplification to reduce the theoretical constructions of F. List to a simple disregard for the objective laws of the market, exchange economy. Indeed, F. List advocates strengthening the regulatory role of the state apparatus in the national economy. But at the same time, it is necessary to take into account the objective historical background of Germany, which served as a breeding ground for the emergence of the theory of restricting freedom of trade and strengthening protectionist measures to protect the still rudimentary national economy and a very weak market.

Another thing is that List did not foresee the possible consequences of strengthening the state bureaucracy even in such a patriotic cause as the defense of national interests. F. List did not see that subtle dialectical line that distinguishes order from state violence, law from the appearance of law, true patriotism from chauvinism. It is no coincidence that at the end of his life, F. List argued that overpopulated Germany should colonize the "free" lands of South-Eastern Europe.

The second half of the 20th century made the almost forgotten theoretical constructions of F. List sound in a new way. Already in the late 60s - early 70s. in the countries of the EEC and the United States, trends of the offensive of protectionists are observed. In Europe, the so-called "trade wars" do not subside, the United States significantly restricts access to its own market for goods for those countries that do not receive the most favored nation treatment, Japan imposes high customs duties on American goods, etc. However, no state is in a position to go for a complete closure of the domestic market in order to protect the national producer from foreign competition. This statement can be illustrated by the example of the United States (Table 3.1.).

Table 3.1.

Share of imports in US domestic consumption

Product type

Metal cutting machines

Forging and pressing equipment

Mechanical engineering for construction

Agricultural machinery

Mining equipment

Mechanical engineering for the food industry

Mechanical engineering for light industry

Mechanical engineering for the pulp and paper industry

Computer equipment

Electronic components

Semiconductors

Cars

Thus, the US market economy, especially after the arrival of the Republican administration of R. Reagan and the beginning of the restructuring of the economic mechanism of the American economy, embarked on the path of searching for the "elixir of youth" in limiting state intervention in the market economy, in stimulating market forces and encouraging domestic and foreign competition, which creates good conditions for the development of the fruits of scientific and technological progress and the use of the international division of labor.

Despite the stubborn resistance of the so-called traditional industries that cannot withstand foreign competition, R. Reagan every year weakened the customs protection of the domestic market.

The share of imports in domestic consumption has been on a steady upward trend despite assurances that protectionist protection is being strengthened. For some types of products, the share of imports in US consumption is quite high: for black-and-white televisions, for example, it is 68%, radios of all types - 76, stereo systems - 77, video recorders - almost 100%. So, according to S. Medvedkov, “in 1972-1983. The growth of national production of products of high-tech industries in the United States by 22% was ensured by its export to world markets and by 78% due to imports.

However, it would be wrong to see in such a policy of the American administration an exclusive adherence to the classical principle of free trade. The US administration, whether it be Reagan, Bush or Clinton, has deliberately pursued and continues to adhere to a kind of “whip policy” against a number of obsolete or too “slow-turning” American industries (for example, steel and automotive), using unlimited or only partially limited imports of foreign cheap products as a forced incentive for their modernization.

Very thin and differentiated policy to relax customs protection in combination with other measures state regulation economy cannot but influence the sectoral structure of investments, in which the proportion of the most profitable types of production is growing.

Thus, freedom of trade in American style can be characterized as a kind of protectionism using the mechanism of external, both external and internal incentives, and, above all, competition and the threat of bankruptcy. But it would be an oversimplification to think that the American experience of selective "open doors" is only aimed at washing out unprofitable industries. By design, trade liberalization should spur American industry to restructure and reconstruct production in order to bring lagging enterprises and industries up to world standards. As a result, since the late 1990s the pace of technological modernization has increased in industries that previously experienced a decline, regardless of the phase of the crisis. The most intensive transition to a new stage of technological and reproductive structures of investment was carried out in the ferrous metallurgy and automotive industry, where production exceeded the pre-crisis level.

Free trade in Russia had historically peculiar, moreover, tragic consequences. Quite balanced economic policy of S.Yu. Witte at the beginning of the twentieth century, aimed at combining the policy of free trade and reasonable protectionism was swept away by the ruthless logic of cause and effect. Curtailing the freedom of trade, the Bolshevik Party limited the scope of personal gain - the basis of economic coercion to work. Consciousness and enthusiasm eventually exhausted themselves. How to make people work? How to keep power? The logic of the fight against economic freedoms quickly led to the path of non-economic coercion and outright violence.

Already on November 10, 1917, any free trade is declared a crime, and persons involved in such commerce are equated with enemies of the state and the political regime. In the absence of a normally established state trade and, accordingly, a general deficit, any trade becomes speculation. Market Disruption Leads to Disorder monetary system, but the rise in prices is declared the work of speculators.

Any restriction on free trade gives rise to a shadow economy, which, according to the figurative expression of Yu. Afanasyev, "turned into the institutional specifics of the then Soviet society, which took deep roots in almost all spheres of society's life."

The elimination of free trade in Russia and attempts to create national autarky turned into a long period of socio-economic stagnation and degradation.

If, under the conditions of political dictatorship, only members of the opposition can become victims of arbitrariness, then as the political dictate extends to the economy, in order to limit economic freedom, the entire population automatically turns into slaves. Not only theory, but also practice confirms that mass violence is generated not by dictators as such, but by the lack of economic freedoms, and, above all, their source - free trade.

After a small sip of economic freedom during the NEP, industrialization and collectivization set in, effectively eliminating the sporadic elements of the market sector of the economy and returning the country to a non-market economy with its non-economic mechanism of coercion.

50s - 60s and early 80s. - the time of increasing stagnation of the Soviet economy. The planned economy, devoid of the hypertrophied coercion characteristic of the 1930s, continued to collapse. Nor could it be revived by the multibillion-dollar injections of petrodollars that literally fell from the sky thanks to the well-known rise in world prices for oil and oil products in the 1970s. True, this factor to a certain extent delayed the hour of the complete collapse of the economy.

However, since the mid-1980s the existing system more and more entered into the deepest, not situational and temporary, but systemic crisis. The abyss of our country's lagging behind market economy not only industrialized states, but also from some former colonies, it reached such colossal proportions that no whip of "camp law" could no longer force a planned economy into a "second wind" regime. The situation was aggravated by the fact that the competition in the amount of iron and steel, ingots and ingots moved into the field of the latest technology, where the potential economic system is determined by the creative capabilities of the people, as well as the flexibility and mobility of the economic mechanism, its ability to be receptive to any technological innovation. That is why the collapse of the Soviet socio-economic and political system was inevitable.

A fundamentally different situation has developed in the Russian economy after the transition to a market economy. In fact, uncontrolled liberalization of domestic and foreign trade from 1992 to 1998. led to a sharp drop in production volumes by national producers. The inability to withstand competition from foreign producers, especially in the sectors of light, food, radio electronics, household chemicals, etc., put the enterprises of these industries in conditions of physical survival. It was here that the most high level decline in production volumes, with all the socio-economic consequences arising from this circumstance. Voluntary withdrawal of the state from the sphere of economy in the first half of the 1990s. led to the fact that the vacuum of the domestic market immediately began to be filled imported goods of very dubious quality, to which the domestic manufacturer at that time was not able to oppose anything. By 1996, many analysts noted the growing trend of Russia's strategic dependence on imported food and raw materials.

Therefore, awareness of the need for strict regulatory measures of the state in the field of not only monetary policy, but also the combination of a stick and a carrot in relation to the national industry, a selective export-import policy, created the prerequisites for the growth of the Russian economy and support for domestic producers.

Thus, having considered two directions in the development of world economic, political and sociological thought, we can conclude the following. The main provisions of the theories of the doctrines of free trade, on the one hand, and the ideology of the state bureaucracy, on the other, were formed back in the 19th century.

For effective analysis today's problems both abroad and in our country, it is necessary to see the genealogical lines of the historical roots of the struggle between free trade and protectionism of the last century.

In principle, the 20th century did not produce anything new in theoretical terms. It was a further development of the conceptual foundations and the practical implementation of all those principles that were formulated in the last century.

And, nevertheless, the economic practice of everyday reality forces us to look at the individual postulates of F. List through the prism of very recent, both world and domestic history.

Continuation
--PAGE_BREAK--

Question 2 The concept of national economy F. Liszt

Answer

The theoretical concept of the national economy was formulated by the first German economist half of XIX in. Friedrich List (Friedrich List) 1789–1846 in "The National System of Political Economy" (Das nationale System derpolitischen ?konomie, 1841).

The German scientist distinguished between national and cosmopolitan economy,"which teaches how the whole human race can secure its well-being." F. List believes that the political economy of the classics is essentially cosmopolitan, offering universal recipes for universal development for all countries. The scientist introduces into economic science the idea of ​​national characteristics of the economy, the study of which should be the science of national economy.

In his main work, the German economist criticizes the classics for speaking of free-trade trade policy as an absolute. F. List is trying to prove that free trade is suitable only for very developed countries (like England in the 19th century) and for backward states. Countries with an average level of economic development need protectionist policies (for example, Russia and Germany). The German scientist presents an interesting option for the development of the economy in the leading countries (Italy, the Netherlands, Great Britain, Spain, Portugal, France, Germany, Russia, the USA).

Instead of the principle of "economic freedom", the scientist puts forward the principle of "industrial education of the nation". The nation is considered by the German economist as an integral system in terms of language, customs, historical development and state structure. The economy is a secondary component of the development of the nation. F. List believes that individual generations must sacrifice their well-being for the development and preservation of the nation. He also proposes to revive protectionist policies, protecting underdeveloped sectors of the economy.

F. List believes that a nation should have equally developed productive forces in agriculture, industry and foreign trade. It is necessary to develop sea and rail transport, improve technical knowledge and skills. Productive forces in the concept of F. List occupy a more important place than consumer goods that can be produced at a given level of productive forces. Industrialization plays a very important role in his system: “List tends to equate agriculture with poverty and low level culture, while industry and urbanization bring wealth and cultural achievement.

In addition to the economic institutions proper, he includes jury trials, parliamentary government, freedom of thought, conscience, the press, and control of the administration as productive forces.

F. List believed that the mercantilist theoretical system is more correct than the classical theory. The main drawback of the classical system is that it promotes individualism and cosmopolitanism, leaving beyond analysis economic problems nation.

The German scientist developed the idea that a country that is backward in economic development should not use the current experience of countries that have achieved certain successes, but their experience in the past, when their economy was in a deplorable state.

He recognizes that the main factor in the emergence of land rent is not differences in land fertility, but remoteness from markets.

Differences in the economic policy of states depend, according to F. List, on their geographical location. Thus, England, due to her insular position, as well as the fact that she does not need a large army, needs free trade. For a state like Germany, located on the continent, fragmented into separate semi-independent states, protectionism is more useful.

F. List noted that for Germany the free trade policy of foreign trade would be negative, that the benefits brought by free foreign trade were less significant than the harm it caused.

The Minister of Finance of Russia, Count S. Yu. Witte, published the work “On Nationalism. National Economy and Friedrich List” (2nd ed., 1912), which is, in essence, an abstract of a book by a German scientist. The book was published in Russian in 1891 (St. Petersburg, ed. A. E. Martens, translated under the editorship of K. V. Trubnikov) and in 2005. (first two parts, M.: Europe).