Foucault's contributions for understanding power relations in British classical political economy

(1)

Availableonlineatwww.sciencedirect.com

ScienceDirect

HOSTED BY

EconomiA16(2015)194–205

Foucault’s

contributions

for

understanding

power

relations

in

British

classical

political

economy

Danielle

Guizzo

a,∗

,

Iara

Vigo

de

Lima

b,1 a_Graduate_Program_of_Public_Policy,_Federal_University_of_Parana_(UFPR),_Brazil

b_Department_of_Economics,_Federal_University_of_Parana_(UFPR),_Brazil

Received18February2015;receivedinrevisedform19June2015;accepted20June2015 Availableonline8July2015

Abstract

ThispaperanalyzesthestrategicroleplayedbyBritishclassicalpoliticaleconomyinconstructingnewtechnologiesofpower. MichelFoucaultdrewattentiontoachangethatpoliticaleconomistspromotedconcerningtheroleofthestate,whichhasbeen overlookedbyhistoriansofeconomicthought.ThispaperexploresthemainargumentsprovidedbythemostimportantBritish politicaleconomistsofthe18thand19thcenturiesonwhatconcernspopulationmanagement,State’sroleandeconomicdynamics inordertoexamineFoucault’sconsiderations.AlthoughBritishclassicalpoliticaleconomyconsolidatedthemechanismofmarkets andeconomicindividuality,thuscreatingasystemoftruththatchangedeconomicnormsandpractices,itsdiscoursealsoestablished apoliticalconductthatwasresponsibleforcreatingmechanismsofcontrolthatdisseminatednewformsofpowerrelations. ©2015NationalAssociationofPostgraduateCentersinEconomics,ANPEC.ProductionandhostingbyElsevierB.V.Allrights reserved.

JELclassiﬁcation: A12;B12

Keywords:Britishclassicalpoliticaleconomy;Genealogyofpower;Liberalartofgovernment;Biopolitics

Resumo

Esteartigoanalisaopapelestratégicodesempenhadopelaeconomiapolíticaclássicabritânicanaconstruçãodenovastecnologias depoder.MichelFoucaultchamouaatençãoparaumamudançapromovidaporeconomistaspolíticoscomrelaçãoaopapeldo Estado,fatoquefoiignoradoporhistoriadoresdopensamentoeconômico.Esteartigoexploraosprincipaisargumentosfornecidos pelosprincipaiseconomistas políticosbritânicosdosséculosXVIIIeXIXnoque dizrespeitoàadministração dapopulação, aopapeldoEstadoeadinâmicadaeconomiaafimdeexaminarasconsideraçõesdeFoucault.Apesardeaeconomiapolítica britânicaterconsolidadoomecanismodosmercadoseoindividualidadenaesferaeconômica,criandoassimumsistemadeverdade

∗_{Corresponding}_author_at:_Rua_Dr._Roberto_Barrozo,₁₇₉₀_Sb.₀₂_–_Merces,_CEP:_80810-090,_{Curitiba/Parana,}_Brazil.

Tel.:+554196751157/4130291157.

E-mailaddresses:danielleguizzo@gmail.com,guizzo@ufpr.br(D.Guizzo),iaravigo@ufpr.br(I.V.deLima).

1 _Address:_Av._Lothário_Meissner,_632,_Térreo,_Sala₀₃_–_Jd._Botanico,_CEP:_80210-170,_{Curitiba/Parana,}_Brazil._Tel.:₊₅₅_4184491752. PeerreviewunderresponsibilityofNationalAssociationofPostgraduateCentersinEconomics,ANPEC.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2015.06.002

(2)

que modificouasnormasepráticaseconômicas,seudiscursotambém estabeleceuumacondutapolítica responsávelporcriar mecanismosdecontrolequedisseminaramnovasformasderelac¸õesdepoder.

Palavras-chave: Economiapolíticaclássicabritânica;Genealogiadopoder;Arteliberaldegovernar;Biopolítica

1. Introduction

ThispaperanalyzesthestrategicroleplayedbytheBritishclassicalpoliticaleconomyintheprocessofcreatingnew formsofpowerrelationsbetweenthestate,populationandeconomicreality.Theaimistounderstandhowpolitical economywasrelevantforrationalizingandconsolidatingaformofpowerthatFrenchphilosopherMichelFoucault designatedas“biopolitics”.2ThepapertakesFoucault’swritingsregardingeconomicideasandre-establishestheminto acriticalanalysisofthehistoryofeconomicthoughtinordertocomprehendhowpoliticaleconomywasresponsible fortheemergence,strengthenandconsequencesofbiopoliticalpractices.

Whereasmosthistoriansofeconomicthoughtinterpretclassicalpoliticaleconomy–especiallytheBritishschool – asawayof understandingandcreatingasystemof liberalpoliticaleconomydesignedtolimit thepowerofthe sovereign,thispaperdemonstratesthatclassicalpoliticaleconomyactuallyservedtoconstitutenewpowerstothestate andtootherinstitutionsrelatedtoit,suchaseducational,health,financial,statistical,psychologicalandurban.

MichelFoucault’sgenealogyofpowerexaminedeconomicthoughtandotherhumansciencestounderstandhow individualsbecamesubjectsinthemodernity.InasmuchFoucaultrealizedthatpowerisnotonlyrepressive,butrather productive(producessubjects,conductsandpatterns),heshiftedhisanalysesfromdisciplinarypowertobiopolitics.3

Foucaultdefinedbiopoliticsasaspecifictechnologyofpowerthatemergedintheendofthe18thcenturyandaimed todealwithbiologicalelementsofhumanbeings,suchas:birth,modeofliving,prosperity,health,reproductionand death.

Foucaulthadtoapproachtheclassicalpoliticaleconomyofthe18thand19thcentury–especiallytheBritishone– becauseadifferentrationalityofStatebecameacentralissueintheanalysesofthefirstthinkersofthatschool,insofar astheywereconcernedwithnationaleconomicgrowthandopulenceofpopulation.Itwasalsoforthisreasonthatthis schoolfirsthadtoquestionthemercantilistdoctrineinwhatconcernedwiththecentralityofState,lateraddressinga critiqueofthesovereign,sincetheStateshouldhavealessinterventionistroleinmanagingsociety.

Foucault’snotionofbiopoliticscanbeinvestigatedfromaperspectivethatconnectseconomicdiscourseandpractice withpowerrelations.AlthoughsomeworkswrittenbyTribe(1978),Amariglio(1988)andLima(2010)madevaluable connectionsbetweenFoucault’swritingsandeconomics,allofthemmadereferencetoFoucault’searlyarcheological writingsandtheepistemicformationsofeconomictheoryanddiscourse,thusnotapproachingextensivelyFoucault’s notionsofbiopoliticsanditsconsequencestoconstitutingnewpowerrelations.

Thispaper first outlines Foucault’s ideasregarding powerrelations andhis genealogicalinvestigation method, showing how the concept of biopolitics emerged. Secondly, the paper emphasizes how British classical political economyemerged,establishingalineofthoughtfromacritiqueofmercantilismtoRicardo’sandMalthus’sideas. Thissectionisfollowedbyacriticalreadingoftheclassicaleconomicthoughtintermsofpowerrelations,taking Foucault’sargumentstostresstheemergenceofaliberalartofgovernmentand,asaconsequence,biopoliticalpractices. Lastly,thefinalremarksregardingthisthemearepresented.

2 _However,_the_term_biopolitics_was_not_created_by_Foucault._Rudolph_Kjellén,_a_Swedish_{intellectual,}_was_perhaps_the_first_to_make_use_of_this word,butFoucault’stheoreticaldevelopmentsregardingbiopoliticsandbiopowerhavebeenconsideredmoreextensiveandaccuratethanthose onesofhispredecessors(Esposito,2008,pp.16,24).

(3)

2. Foucault’sgenealogyofpower:theemergenceofbiopolitics

MichelFoucault’sinvestigationsinvolveddifferentareasofhuman,socialandmedicalsciences,suchaspsychiatry; sexuality;clinic; law;economics; philosophy of science; discourse andlanguage, among others. Hisvast oeuvre

includedbooks,courses,interviewsandseverallecturesthatwerenotseparatedintoisolatedphases,ratherintheoretical displacements4insidethesameperspective:tosearchforthereasonswhyindividualsbecamesubjectsinmodernage. HistoryhadalwaysbeenapresentissueinFoucauldianoeuvre,especiallyinregardtothetransitionfrom arche-ologytogenealogy.Thelatterbecameabroaderapproachonceitdealtwithnon-discursivepractices,differingfrom archeology.WithgenealogyFoucaultcontinuedtoinvestigatetheissueofknowledge,butdealingwithitfromapower perspective:knowledgegeneratespower,andtherefore,truthregimes.

Foucaultsoughttheconnectionsamongknowledge,powerandtruth,followingFriedrichNietzsche’sgenealogical analysisandmethod.AccordingtoFoucault(1971,pp.67–69),genealogywasnotasearchforanorigin,neglecting allotherhistoricalaspects,butratheraninvestigationthatshouldpayattentiontothediscontinuousandspecificfacts ofadiscourse.Genealogyrepresentedacombinationofthreemajoraspects:(i)discontinuity,whendiscourseshould beconsiderednotsomethingevolutionaryintime,ratherdiscontinuous;(ii)speciﬁcity,whichdoesnotassumea pre-discourseorcertainsymbolsthatmakeastatementpossible,buttoconsideradiscourseassomethingspecificfrom itsowntimeandspace;and(iii)exteriority,whenconditionsofpossibilityoutsideadiscoursemustbeconsidered,as externalfacts,actorsandpowerrelations.

Topursueagenealogyofpowerrelationsmeanttoabandontheideathat‘powerisalwaysrepressiveandpunitive’. EventhoughFoucaultinvestigateddisciplinarypoweranditsdisseminativeinstitutions(prison,school,hospital,etc.), helaterturnedtoadifferentformofpower:theonethatdevelopsrelationsofproductivityinhumanlife.

Foucaultclaimedthatanewformofpoweremergedduringthe18thand19thcenturies,whichwasnotapunitive one,butratheraproductiveoneanditfocusedonhumanlifeasawhole.Hedesignatedthisemergingformofpoweras “biopower”(2004,p.01).Biopowerrepresentedadefiniteturninhisanalysesoncehere-insertedStateasarelevant powerinstitution,inasmuchasStatecentralizesandappliesmanyformsofpowerrelations.Foucaultthenshiftedhis analysesfromapreviousmicro-institutionaltoamacrolevel.

ForFoucault,itwasduringthat timethatthe subjectstartedbeingconsiderednotonlyindividually,butmainly collectively,emphasizingthenotionofpopulation.Thetransitionfromtheindividualtothepopulationasthe embodi-mentofapoliticalsubjectoccurredthroughoutthe18thcentury,aperiodoftimewhenFoucaultclaimsthatoneofthe firstgreatnoveltiesinpowertechniqueswastheappearanceofpopulationasaneconomic,socialandpoliticalissue

(Foucault,1978,p.31).Atthatmomentintime,governmentsrealizedthattheycouldnotmanageisolatedindividuals

onlyorpeopleingeneral,butpopulationinitsownregularityandspecificvariables:birth,lifeexpectancy,reproduction, productivity,habitatanddeath.

Foucaultdevelopedagenealogyof governmentalpracticesthat occurredfromthe 16thtothe 20thcenturiesto understandbiopowerdynamicsandbiopoliticalpractices.Heaccomplishedthisinordertoarticulatemoreaccurately thegovernmentalpracticesinmercantilism,classicalliberalismandneoliberalism,highlightingthepopulation man-agementandthereinforcementofbiopolitics.Hence,biopoliticswasintimatelyrelatedtoexistent powerrelations amongState,populationandeconomicknowledge,whichwasakeyformofpowerthroughoutthebirthofcapitalism. Foucault’sbookfirstpublishedin1976,TheHistoryofSexualityvolume1:AnIntroductionprovidedananalysisof structuralchangesinsovereigntyfromtheendofthe17thcenturytothebeginningofthe19th.AccordingtoFoucault

(1978,p.131),throughoutthehistoryofsovereignty,thesovereignhadaprivilegedroleofactingdirectlyovervassals,

decidingupontheirlifeordeath.Whentherewasanykindofthreatentosovereign’sposition,hehadadivinerightto declarewarandtosacrificehisvassals’lives.

Nevertheless,Foucault(1978,pp.135–137)emphasizedthattherewasan asymmetryof rightsinthat previous powerrelationship:Stateexercisedpowerintheformofarightoverbothlifeanddeathofpeople,butthisdidnot meanthatStateshouldconsiderthemaintenanceoflifeaspartofitsduties.Itwasonlyattheendofthe17thcentury thatprofoundchangesinpowermechanismsemerged.First,differentmodesofcontrol,disciplineandsurveillance arose,aimingatproducingdocile,disciplinedand‘normal’individuals.Lateron,attheendofthe18thcenturymore

(4)

precisely,anewtypeofpoweremerged,Foucaultaffirmed,whichbecameasortofpowerthathadtocareafterthe maintenanceoflifeandsothewell-beingofpopulation.Whileterritoryusedtobethemainconcernforthesovereign, populationbecamethemostvaluablenationalresource,andsothecenterofattentionfortheState.

The constitutionofthispower overlife,biopower,wasbasedon twomain pillars:onewas established during the17thcenturyandinvolvedtheanatomo-politicsofanindividualizedbody–disciplines;anotheroneemergedat theendofthe18thcentury–thebiopoliticsofthepopulation–organizingpoweroverlifeinitscollectiveway.The latterconstructedpowerrelationsthatfocusedonbiologicalprocessesoflife:birth,reproduction,growth,productivity, health,etc.

Thedivisionofbiopowerintotwopillarsaimedatcontrollingindividualsintheirtotality,henceproducingsubjects

(Foucault,1978,p.140).However,Foucault(1997,pp.242–243)highlightedthedifferenttechniquesthatcomprise

disciplinarypowerandbiopoliticalpractices.Biopoliticsregardedhumanbeingsnotintheirindividuality,butrather intheirmultiplicity,takenthemasconstitutingaglobalmassthatisaffectedbydifferentprocessesthatoccurduring theirlifetime.Thesebiopoliticaltechniquesdemanded anewsetofknowledges(connaissances5₎_in_order_to_assist

the control andmaintenanceof their lives, such as statistical devices,demography, public policies, anddiscourse legitimacy.

Theseconnaissancesprovidedregulatorymechanismsthathadastheirprimegoalequilibriumandstability.While individualization,punishmentandexclusionoftheabnormal werethecommonsetofpracticesforthedisciplinary powertocontrolanddiscipline,biopoliticsbegantousesecurityapparatusandthenotionoflaissez-fairetoregulate thecollectivitythroughthenotionofequilibriumandnormality.

A“securityapparatus”or“dispositif”couldbecharacterizedasatechnique,aconnaissance,acalculusorapolicy. It actedoveraspace(not aterritory),encompassingamultiplicityof subjectsandwherethe populationlives. Its maingoalwastonormalizethepopulationandtomakesurethatallactivitiesrelatedtopopulation’sequilibriumand normalitywouldworkwell.Forinstance,Foucaultexemplifiestheproblemoffoodscarcityinthemiddleofthe18th century:whenconfrontingsuchissue,physiocratknowledgemanagedtoavoidfoodscarcitynotbyloweringprices andcontrollingeconomicvariables,ratherbyconceivinglaissez-faireasaneconomicpolicywherepricescouldfloat freelywithinthemarketsphere.

Inthissense,politicalandeconomictechniquescouldbeconsideredasmodernsecurityapparatuses,especiallythe oneswithliberalaspects.Foucault(2004,pp.11–15)says,unlikedisciplinaryforces,securityapparatusesactusing broaderforces,takinglaissez-fairebeyondeconomicsphereandre-usingitwithinpoliticaldomain.Permissionand normalizationbecamethenitsmainguide.Therefore,securitywasacollectivepowerthatconsideredpopulationasits politicalsubject,aimingitsnormalizationandcontrolledpermissiveness.

Foucault(1997,p.250)claimstheexerciseofbiopoliticshasbeeneffectedbybothStateandnon-Stateapparatuses

andinstitutionssincethe19thcentury,contradictingtheideaofbiopoliticsbeingexclusivelyaStateformofpower. Theinstitutionsrelatedtobiopoliticsalsoincluded,forinstance,medicalinstitutions,insurancesandwelfarefunds, whichhavebecomemoreaccurateandcollectivelyspreadthroughoutthe20thcentury.

Foucauldiangenealogyconsideredthateconomicideas–especiallytheonesproducedbytheclassicalpolitical economy–weremajorlyrelevantfortheanalysisofthebirthandgrowthofbiopolitics.InFoucault’slecturespresented inCollègedeFrancebetween1978and1979(entitledSecurity,Territory,PopulationandTheBirthofBiopolitics)he highlightedthecentralandstrategicroleplayedbyeconomictheoriesandideasinthatprocess.AccordingtoFoucault, economictheoriesshouldnotbetakenonlyasasetofdiscourses,butalsoaspoliticalpracticesthatwereembodied bytheStateandotherinstitutionsasawayofproducingnewpowerrelations.

Thedevelopmentofpoliticaleconomybecame,forFoucault,themajorlocusofbiopoliticalpractices,inasmuch asitwasthefirstmainschoolofthought–inparticulartheBritisheconomistsfromtheendofthe18thcenturyto mid-19thcentury–tofocusonissuesrelatedtoeconomicmanagementandpopulationcare,openingupanewsetof ideas,theoriesandpractices.

Themainargumentsof classicalpoliticaleconomypresentedinthispaperintend toreturntothe emergenceof pre-classicaleconomicthought(mercantilismandphysiocracy)inordertoidentifyandunderstandwhichideaswere

(5)

relevant fortheir discourses, how theywerearticulated andhow theylefteconomic sphereand becameapart of governmentalpractices.Tounderstandhowa‘liberalartofgovernment’emergedandhowbiopoliticalpracticewas intrinsicallyrelatedtoit,thenextsectionfocusesontheemergenceandconsolidationofclassicalpoliticaleconomy, highlightingitsmainideasregardingpopulationcareandtheroleofthestate.Althoughmosthistoriansofeconomic thoughtinterprettheclassicalsascreatingasystemofliberalpoliticaleconomydesignedtolimitthepowerofthe sovereign,Foucaultseesitdifferently:asawayofconstitutingnewpowersofthesovereign.

3. Classicalpoliticaleconomy:theroleofStateandpopulationcare

Thissectionoutlinessomeofthemaineconomic,politicalandsocialconditionsthatcontributedtotheemergence ofclassicalpoliticaleconomyandhowsomeofthemostimportantBritishpoliticaleconomistsofthe18thand19th centuries,inparticularAdamSmith,DavidHume,ThomasMalthusandDavidRicardo,interpretedthem.

ForFoucault,tobuildagenealogymeanstosearchforthediscontinuous,specificandexteriorfactorsthatinfluenced theemergence of aknowledge, discourseor practice.Therefore,tounderstandclassicalpoliticaleconomyfroma genealogicalpointofviewmeanstopayattentiontocertainissuesthatwereignoredornotproperlyinvestigatedby historiansofeconomicthought.Inhislectures,Foucaultquotedseveraleconomiststhatwererelevanttohisanalysis oftheshiftintechnologiesofpowerattheendofthe18thcentury.HenotedthattheBritishliberalschoolpromoteda changeinthewaytounderstandtheactionoftheStateinregardtomarketsinterference,populationcareandpolitical management,especiallywhenanalyzingtheideasdevelopedbytheeconomistsmentionedabove.Thus,theirwritings shouldbe reexamined inordertounderstandhow their theories wereconceived anddisseminated throughoutthe politicalreasoningfromtheendofthe18thtothemiddleofthe19thcentury.

Inordertounderstandthemintheirowncontext,itmaybehelpfultoclassifythemintotwocategories(orgenerations) accordingtosomeofthemaineconomicandpoliticalissuesoftheirtime,aswellastothewaytheroleoftheStatewas conceived.SmithandHumeconstitutedthefirstgeneration,whereasMalthusandRicardocomposedthesecondone.

3.1. ThepoliticaleconomyofScottishenlightenment

Thebirthofpoliticaleconomywasconditionedbythecrisisofmercantilistdoctrine,whichwasheavilycriticized bymany intellectuals of the endof the 18thcentury – including Smithand Hume, as well as the emergence of FrenchphysiocracyandScottishEnlightenmentinthemiddleofthe18thcentury.Thewell-knownSmithiancriticof mercantilism,portrayedbyJacobViner(1991),hasbeenbroughtintoquestionbymanymercantilistscholars,suchas

Magnusson(2009,pp.49–53).

Regardlessofwhathasbeendebatedintermsofmercantilistnotionsofwealthandvalue,acentralquestionregarding thecritiqueofpoliticaleconomyinvolvedthestructureofpowerthatpredominatedinmercantilism.Thisreferredto thecentraldominanceoftheStateregardinginternalandexternaltrade–which,accordingtoSmith,forinstance,did notrespectnaturaleconomicforces,theopulenceofthenationthroughpopulationgrowthanditsexclusiveeconomic importance.

Theshiftfrommercantilismtophysiocracyoccurredinamomentwheremercantilismhaditsdeclineduetoan economicandpoliticalcrisis(seeMokyr,2009,p.05).BothFrenchandBritisheconomistscontemporarywiththat momentplayedanimportantroleinconsolidatingnewideas.Forinstance,thenotionofanaturalorderofeconomic forcesandofanendogenousgrowthofthepopulation,aswellastheshiftofthefocusfromtheagriculturalproduction tothecommercialactivityconstructedthebasesofmid-18thcenturyphysiocracy,influencingclassicaleconomists directly(Brewer,2009,p.85).

Somekeyaspectsregardingphysiocraticinfluencestowardpoliticaleconomy–especiallySmith’swritings–lied onnotions regarding ‘economic government’;the role of the population andstatistical analysis; the dynamics of economicforcesofsupplyanddemandandtheroleofself-interestineconomicdecisions.Whatitshouldbenotedis thatphysiocratictraditiondifferedfrommercantilismintermsoftheeconomicsystemasawhole,emphasizingnot onlycommerce,butagriculture,thenaturalorderanddynamicsofeconomicforces,suchassupplyanddemand,and theemergingnotionofself-interest.

However,politicaleconomypresentedabroaderanalysiswhencomparedtophysiocractsintermsofwhatconstituted value,theimportanceofmanufacturingproductionandtotheroleplayedbyStateonalltheeconomicprocessed.Smith

(6)

thepopulationtoobtainaproperreturnandopulence,aswellasmakingpossibletoStateobtainingenoughrevenue tofundpublicservices.Thiswouldmeanthatpoliticaleconomyandeconomicissueswerenotconsideredaseparate topicfromtheinstitutionoftheState.

AlthoughmoralsentimentsandhumannaturewerealwayspresentinSmithianandHumeananalysis,atthesame timetheyindicatedthereinforcementofaparticularviewofindividualandreality.Smith’s(1976a,pp.26–27,456)

argumentsregardingself-interestandbenevolenceineconomicandsocialcontextspresentedacomplexvisionofthe individualwhichcannotbereducedtoplainself-interestbyallmeans.White(2009,p.56)claimsthattheeconomic sideshowedtheminimumpreconditionstothefunctioningofthemarketinanimpersonalway;thus,therelations betweenbuyersandsellersdidnotrequireexclusivelyprofoundsocialbonds.Thisexplainswhyindividualswithin themarketcouldbemotivatedbyself-interest.

Complementarytothis,Hume(2009,p.762)saysindividuals’interestsweresubjectedtoaninstitutionalization, representingamovefromindividualspheretothecollectiveone.ToHume,thisrepresentedtheemergenceoftheState whencertainindividualsruletheinterestsofothersinasocietythroughjusticeandnorm.Smithanalyzedthisbyusing theinvisiblehandmetaphor:sociallybeneficialspontaneousordersoriginate fromtheinteractionofself-regarding actors(Smith,2006,p.84).

Nevertheless,Smith’smetaphordidnotrepresentarejectiontoregulationortheestablishmentofhigherinstitutions, especiallywhenheapproachedthesocialcontext.HemadethatclearbydefendingsomeState’stasksinTheWealth oftheNationsandLecturesofJurisprudence(see,forexample,Smith,1976b,pp.687–688,1978,p.05).

WhenSmithdeterminedwhichdutiestheStateshouldaccomplish,hepresentedanunintendedordermodel(see

Young,2005)whichaimedatharmonizingnaturalfreedom,maintainingcommonjusticeanddefendingindividuals’

intereststhroughmoralphilosophy.Ontheotherhand,justicewouldbeconductedthroughtheinvisiblehand,sothe sovereigninterventionwouldonlybenecessaryifjusticefailedasanunintentionalresult.Whatshouldbenotedin Smith’swritingsisthattheStateandthesovereignarenotexcludedfromthepoliticalandsocialprocesses;butrather theyaredelimitatedtospecifictaskswhichincludedjustice,nationalsecurityandpublicadministration.

ConcernsregardingtheroleoftheStateincludedpubliccleanliness,publicsecurityandeducation.When appro-achingsecurity,Smithsays:‘Ingeneral,thebestmeansofbringingaboutthisdesirableendistherigorous,severe, andexemplaryexecutionoflawsproperlyformedforthepreventionofcrimesandestablishingthepeaceofthestate.’

(Smith,1978,p.331).

Similarly,Smith’swritingsdefendededucationasapublicgood,andthusitshouldbeprovidedbytheState:‘For averysmallexpence[sic]thepublick[sic]canfacilitate,canencourage,andcanevenimposeuponalmostthewhole bodyofthepeople,thenecessityofacquiringthosemostessentialpartsofeducation.’(Smith,1976b,p.785).

ItshouldbenotedthatsomeargumentsandtheoriesprovidedbySmithandHumebeganananalyticaltradition regardingeconomicideasthatinfluencedthefollowinggenerationofpoliticaleconomists.Whenapproachingtherole ofStatespecifically,theirclaimswereredesignedbyMalthusandRicardo,whichalsodeserveaproperinvestigation.

3.2. ThepoliticaleconomyoftheEnglishtradition

Withinthegenealogicalprocessofeconomicideas,Malthus’sandRicardo’swritingscouldbeanalyzedbypointing outdiscontinuityandspecificityissues.First,theirideasshouldnotbetakensimplyasanaturalevolutionaryprocess derivingfromSmithianandHumeanthesis;manytimesintheirworks,MalthusandRicardoemphasizedacriticism inregardtothefirstgenerationofpoliticaleconomists.

Secondly,someconditionsofpossibilityoutsidetheirdiscoursemustbeconsidered,locatingwhichexternalfacts wererepresentative,especiallyinwhatconcernssocialandpoliticalelements.Forthat,areferencetothemaineconomic, social andpolitical outcomes of the First Industrial Revolution iscrucial. Thissection focuses onMalthus’s and Ricardo’swritingsregardingpopulationtreatment,itseffectsonlabormarketandthestrategicroleofState,emphasizing someconsiderationsregardingtheshiftofideasfromthefirstgenerationtothesecondone.

Malthus’s workregardingpopulation hasbeen extensively quotedand criticized,although he was notthe first intellectualtoapproachthisissueineconomicterms.6HiscritiquetowardotherpoliticaleconomistssuchasAdam

(7)

SmithandDavidHumefocusedonrethinkingtheiroptimisticworldview,claimingthattheirvisionoftheintegrityof themanandhisconnectiontosocietyhadnotbeenempiricallyverified(seeMalthus,1998,pp.02–03).

Mokyr(2009)andDeane(1979)verified adecreaseonmortalityratesfollowedbyanincreaseonbirthratesin

the18thcenturyUnitedKingdom.Also,morecomplexsocialissueswerepointedoutbyMokyr(2009,pp.287–289)

inregardtoBritishsocialandmatrimonialstructure,emphasizingtheroleofincreasingwagesandtheincrementof marriages(andchildren).

AccordingtoMalthus’spessimistviewoftheworld,GreatBritainsufferedfromanincreaseinitsinhabitantsasa consequenceofthePoorLaws.7ExtinguishingthoseLaws,inMalthusianview,wouldbothcontrolBritishpopulation growthandcauseanimprovementofpreventiveandpositivechecks.Thepreventivecheckswerethosethatprevented thepopulationfromexpanding:legalandbiologicalinstruments(i.e.theoptionofnotgettingmarriedornothaving children);whereasthepositivechecksincludedthosemeasureswhichincreaseddeathrates:hunger,warandinfectious diseases(Malthus,1998,pp.19–23).

Ifwagesrepresentedthenaturalpriceofnecessarylabortoallowworkerstosubsistandperpetuatetheirexistence, MalthusandRicardo (2001,p.58)agreedthat wagessufferedfromthe naturalforcesofsupplyanddemand.The effectsofwagesonthepopulationwereinvestigatedbybothpoliticaleconomists,creatingacomplementarytheory.

Inthissense,ifhigherwagesmotivatedpopulationgrowth,thenumberofworkerswouldsufferanincreaseand hencethewageswouldstartaloweringmovementtowarditsnaturalpriceagain.InascenariowherethePoorLaws stillpersisted,saysMalthus(1836,pp.71–72)andRicardo(2001,pp.67–68),thisassistancewouldtendtocausea loweringeffectonwagesduetothelowernumberofworkerswillingtotradetheirlaborforceforwages.Therefore, tomaintaintheirprofitrates,thecapitalistswouldtendtolowerthepaymentsgiventoworkers.However,thisthesis wascriticizedbyanti-liberalintellectualsduringthe20thcentury.8

Afactthatdeservesafurtheranalysisisthenewpowerdynamicsestablished duringthe19thcenturyregarding theStateactiontowardthe PoorLaws.TheinstitutionofStatewasresponsible forestablishing it,revokingitand redesigningitintonewformsofpopulationcare,whichindicatedarelevantlinkbetweenliberalpoliticaleconomists andtheroleoftheStateintermsofpowerrelations.

Althoughtheimportancegiventotheliberalcontentofthosewritingsisnotable–forinstance,thecriticismthat

Ricardo(2001,p.85)makesaboutgovernmentalinterferenceonexternaltrade–itisworthnoticingthattheinstitution

ofStateisnotfullyrejected.Regardlessthecritiquesoneconomicinterferenceandcontrol,thepresenceoftheState isrecognizedandemphasizedwhendealingwithpopulationmanagementandcare.IntheMalthusiantheory,State shouldhelpimprovingthepreventiveandpositivechecks,stimulatingwarsandpreventingthepopulationfromearly marriagesandhighbirthratesthroughlegalways.

Therefore,Stateactionwasnecessarytocontrolpopulationgrowthandtomaintainthewelfareofthecollectivity. OncethePoorLawsbroughtnegativeeffectsintermsofmoralbehaviorandnationaleconomy,itwastheState’sduty tosuspenditandtoprovideothermeansofcareandregulation.Thefinancialassistanceanddirectassistanceswere withdrawnandreplacedbyaStatecarewhichfocusedaregulativemanagementofthepopulation,aformofcontrol whichusedstatistics(birthrates,deathrates,marriages,immigration)andotherindirectmeanstoseekasocialbalance. Understandingthewaythosepoliticaleconomiststreatedtheissueofpoliciesconcerningpopulationmanagement fromagenealogicalperspectiveallowsustocomprehendhowtheyweretransformedfromtheoriesintopractices.If thoseconceptsandtheoriesinfacttranscendedfromtheepistemologicalsphereofeconomicstothepoliticalframeof State,theyhavealteredStateactiontowardpopulation.

Thenextsectionanalyzes thisissueusingFoucault’s conceptof biopoliticstogether withthe ideasofclassical politicaleconomistsinordertounderstandhowanewformof poweremergedandhowitcontributes forabetter understandingofpositiveformsofpowerrelations–thosethatproduceconducts,behaviorsandpatterns.

7 _The_Poor_Laws_were_constituted_as_a_set_of_poverty_relief_policies_(monetary,_food,_clothing,_etc.)_established_since_the_Tudor_era_(16th_century) untiltheendofthe19thcenturyintheUK(seePolanyi,2001).However,accordingtoDeane(1979,p.152),thePoorLawsweredirectedmainly toruralworkersanditdidnotreachmanymanufacturingworkers,althoughthesystemsufferedmanycritiques.

(8)

4. Liberalismandsecurityincontemporarygovernment

Forthepurposeofthispaper,aninvestigationofthehistoricalchangesinStatepoliciesconcerningpopulation’scare demandsanintegratedanalysis.First,itinvolvesamoreattentiveconsiderationoftheFoucauldianthesisregardingthe evolutionofpowerrelationsthroughoutthe16thtothe19thcenturies;andsecondly,itrequiresabetterunderstanding abouttherelationshipbetweentheconceptofbiopoliticsandclassicalliberalconsiderationsregardingtheroleofState ineconomic,politicalandsocialterms.Insofaraseconomicideaswereconvertedintopoliticalpracticeswithspecific consequences,themaingoalofthissectionistounderstandhowthisprocessevolved.

Foucault’sintellectualdevelopmentsregardingeconomicideasfocusedontheshiftsfrommercantilismand phys-iocracytopoliticaleconomy,emphasizinghowthepowerdynamicsestablishedamongState,marketsandpopulation sufferedsignificantchangesfromthe16thtotheendofthe18thcentury.AccordingtoFoucault(2004,pp.312–315), mercantilismwascharacterizedbytheinstitutionofthepolice,whichrepresentedaspecificformofpublic adminis-trationthroughoutthe16th,17thand18thcenturies.Whilemercantilistdoctrinepursuedeconomicopulenceofthe nationthroughStatecontrolofmarketsandtrade,thepolice9_was_responsible_for_{administrating}_public_affairs_in_a

broadersense,whichincludedallspheresinregardtolife:security,labor,trade,morality,healthandhappiness. Whenphysiocracyemerged –not asaproperschool ofthought, butas anorganizedsetof ideas, accordingto

Schumpeter (1994,pp.223–224) – it brought newconcepts on howtofight scarcity through agricultureandfree

competition,whereprices,supplyanddemandwouldfluctuatefreely.Also,itprovidedalternativetheoriesregarding self-interest andcriticized mercantilist overregulation toward economic sphere andtrade (see Schumpeter, 1994, pp. 209–248).Furthermore, physiocracy was arelevant theoretical frame because of its primary criticism toward mercantilism,whatrepresentedinFoucault’stermsthebeginningoftheshifttoadifferentgovernmentality.10

However,Foucaultclaimsthatpoliticaleconomyinfactwasthefirsteconomicschoolofthoughttorepresentthe beginningofanewgovernmentalitybydividingpower,knowledge,governmentandscienceproperly.Foucault(2004,

pp.350–351)saysthat,unliketheresortsusedby17thcenturyraisond’Etat–thatis,calculationsofforces,diplomatic

calculationsandtradebalance,classicalpoliticaleconomylaunchedatypeofscientificknowledgethatwasexternal totheStateandenteredgovernmentalpracticesthroughdifferentanalyticalmethods.Hesays:‘twopolesappearofa scientificitythat,ontheonehand,increasinglyappealstoitstheoreticalpurityandbecomeseconomics,and,onthe other,atthesametimeclaimstherighttobetakenintoconsiderationbyagovernmentthatmustmodelitsdecisions

onit.’(Foucault,2004,p.351).

Then, asSmith(1976a,p. 428)onceconsidered, thedutyofpolitical economywas toarchitect andrationalize politicsthataimedattheopulenceofthenationanditspopulation.Thus,thisschoolofthoughtacquiredanormative tonewhichwentbeyondtheanalysisofpureeconomicdata,creatingastrategicroleintermsofgovernmentalpolicies. Wheneconomicideasreachedgovernmentallevelofaction,economicliberalismwasconsolidatedasatechnology ofgovernment,transformingthemarkets,utilityandinterestsasself-limitingprinciplesofgovernmentalreason.This representedtoFoucault(2008,pp.27–28)theempowermentof“theliberalartofgovernment”andtheprovisionofthe ideaof“frugalgovernment”.ThismeantthattheStatedidnotestablishitsprinciples,actionsandreasoningthrough conceptsofpower,laws,wealthandstrengthanymore,butthroughtherestrictionofStatepowerbasedoneconomic rules,principlesandactions.

Inotherwords,itisthenaturalmechanismofthemarketandtheformationofanaturalpricethatenablesusto falsifyandverifygovernmentalpractice[...].Consequently,themarketdeterminesthatgoodgovernmentisno longersimplygovernmentthatfunctionsaccordingtojustice.Themarketdeterminesthatagoodgovernmentis nolongerquitesimplyonethatisjust.Themarketnowmeansthattobegoodgovernment,governmenthasto functionaccordingtotruth.[...]Politicaleconomywasimportant,eveninitstheoreticalformulation,inasmuch as(andonlyinasmuchas,butthisisclearlyagreatdeal)itpointedouttogovernmentwhereithadtogotofind

9 _According_to_Schumpeter_(1994,_p.₁₅₉₎_the_State_of_police,_or_{polizeiwissenschaft}_was_a_governance_model_that_emerged_in_Germany_during the18thcentury.Itinvolvedthemainprinciplesofpublicadministrationandbureaucracy,encompassingissuessuchaspublicsecurityandcivil protection,hygieneandhealth,education,moralconductandotherareasofpopulation’slives(moreonthis,seeFoucault,2004;Smith,1978).

(9)

theprincipleoftruthofitsowngovernmentalpractice.[...]Themarketmusttellthetruth(direlevrai);itmust tellthetruthinrelationtogovernmentalpractice.(Foucault:2008,p.32,originalhighlights)

AccordingtoFoucault,whentheknowledgeproducedbypoliticaleconomyconsolidatedtheideasofthemechanism ofmarketsandnaturalprice,thishadanimpactnotonlyoneconomicideas,butalsoongovernmentalpractices.The principlethatnaturaleconomicforceswouldleadtodesirableresultsofmarketpromotedachangeingovernmental practices,which shiftedfrom the focus on issuesof law, justice andnational opulence to the primary economic supervisionofmarkets.Thus,thedutyoftheStatewastobetosupervisethefunctioningofmarketrelationsandto ensurethefreedomofthe agentswithintheeconomicscenarionotbyinterveningintheeconomydirectly,butby preservingtheinterests,tradesandeconomicprocesses.

Forinstance,aneighteencenturyeditionoftheEveningMail(London)describedhowStateshouldperformasa supervisorwhenmanagingthesocietyandtheeconomicreality:

[Weare]nowataperiodinthelifeofsocietywhencommercialknowledgehadrisentoperfection,andwhenit wasdemonstratedbydailypracticethatmoreadvantageswerederivedfromunrestrainedmodesofbarterand exchange,thanfromanyregulationwhichthelimitedunderstandingsofaLegislaturecoulddevise.(Evening

Mail,1797,p.3).

IntroducingliberaleconomicprincipleswithinthesphereofactionsoftheStateledtoaredesignofitspractices, especiallyconcerning the treatment of the population.Justice, security, freedom,education, healthandwellbeing policiesbecameapoliticalagendathatwasnotfoundintheoldStateofpoliceduringmercantilism.Thisactuallyled toseveralpoliticalandsocialconsequencesthatwereconceptualizedbyFoucaultintheshapeofanewtechnologyof power,biopolitics.

Insofarasbiopoliticsconstituteditselffromtheperspectiveofsecurity,Foucault(2008,pp.65–66)emphasizedthe emergenceandreinforcementofcontrolmechanismsasacounterpartofliberaleconomicideasandtheestablishment ofmarketsasatruthregime.Ifbiopoliticsaroseasatechnologyofpowerthataimedatregulatingandcontrollingthe populationthroughwellbeingpoliciesandformsofknowledgeknownassecurityapparatuses,politicaleconomywas alsoresponsibleforrationalizingsuchpoliciesthroughtheroleofStateconcerningpopulationissues.

WhenMalthus(1998,p.05)discussesthedifferencesbetweenfoodexpansion(arithmeticalgrowth)andpopulation

increase(geometricalgrowth),hedemonstratesgreatconcernindefendingasetofcontrolmechanismsto,inMalthusian terms,maintainthenaturalness andregularitybetweenthe growthofpopulationandlandproductionaccordingto naturallaws.Thisrepresentedaconcernregardingdemographiccontrol,publichygiene,economicproductionand population’sstatistics(seeMalthus,1998,p.10).

Furthermore,defendingtheannulmentofPoorLawsandtheconsequentexpansionoflaborforceindicatedaclear instancefortheactionofState:howshouldStateintervenesothatmarketscouldworkproperly?Inthiscase,revoking thePoor Lawswouldhaveforced low-incomeindividualstoenterthe labormarketandtorelease thesupplyand demandmechanismofwages,makingthemfluctuatefreely.

OthermeansofactionregardingtheroleofStatetowardpopulationliedonpreventivechecks.AccordingtoMalthus, thediscouragingofearlymarriagesdependedonmoralandeducationalpillars,which,inSmith’sopinion(1976b,pp.

781–786)shouldbeadutyoftheState.

QuotingSmith:

Thoughthestatewastoderivenoadvantagefromtheinstructionoftheinferiorranksofpeople,itwouldstill deserveits attention that theyshouldnotbe altogetheruninstructed.[...]The moretheyare instructed,the lessliabletheyaretothedelusionsofenthusiasmandsuperstition,which,amongignorantnations,frequently occasionthemostdreadfuldisorders.Aninstructedandintelligentpeoplebesidesarealwaysmoredecentand orderlythananignorantandstupidone.Theyfeelthemselves,eachindividually,morerespectable,andmore likelytoobtain the respect of their lawful superiors,andtheyare therefore moredisposed to respectthose superiors.Theyaremoredisposedtoexamine,andmorecapableofseeingthrough,theinterestedcomplaints offactionandsedition,andtheyare,uponthataccount,lessapttobemisledintoanywantonorunnecessary oppositiontothemeasuresofgovernment.(Smith,1976b,p.788).

(10)

Ricardo’s (see 2001,pp.96, 105) criticism of governmentaltaxes over foreign tradeand nationalcapital well portrayedhowtheStatecouldbecomeanobstacletoanincreaseoneconomicreturnsfromindustry,agricultureand foreigntrade.ThatreinforcesFoucault’sargumentregardingthedouble-sidedconsequencesofpoliticaleconomy:the defenseoflessStateinterventiononeconomicforces(andincaseofintervention,itshouldoccuronlywhennecessary ortoensuretheproperfunctioningofmarkets);andtheemergenceofnumerouspoliciesthatinvolvedthebiological sideofthepopulation.

Itis worthexploringmorecarefullythe counterpartofthe liberalartof government,whichfoundmarketsand

laissez-faireasitsprincipleoftruthatthesametimeitcreatedregulationmechanismstocontrolthepopulation’slives. Inasmuchastheknowledgeprovidedbypoliticaleconomyascendedasasetofpoliticalpractices,theinstitutionof Stateremainedasamanagerofthesecurityapparatuses–asFoucaultargued.Theissueofsecurityanditsapparatuses emergedasaconsequenceoftheliberalartofgovernment,insofarasself-regulatingmarketsdemandedthecontrolof theStateasaconditiontoitsproperfunctioning.

Therefore,theempowermentofeconomicliberalismandtheemergenceofbiopoliticalpracticesarecodependent. TheriseofeconomicliberalismandtheredesignoftheroleoftheStatedonotmeanthatthisregimeofgovernment isfree,tolerantorpermissive.Althoughitproducesliberalizingdiscourseswithintheeconomiccontext,ithas conse-quencesregardingthecontrolofindividualandcollectivelivessinceit‘produces’certainspecificfreedomswithina controlledspace.

Securityapparatusesproduceregulativeconsequences,buttheyalsoproducefreedomoncetheyallowpopulationto be‘free’undercertainlimitsandboundaries.ForFoucault,thiswasacleardemonstrationofthebirthandconsolidation ofbiopolitics:theemergenceofseveralinstitutionsandpoliciesthataimpopulation’scareandwellbeinginaccordance withadiscourseoffreedomassociatewithmarketsregularityandnaturalness.

Apracticalexamplethatclarifiesthesocialandpoliticalconsequencesofthebiopoliticalprocesscanbederived fromthe19thcenturyGreatIrish Famine,whenBritishToriesandWhigssawthat historicalfact“asscientifically inevitableandnecessarytoclearawaythesurplusIrishpopulation”,andanecessary“mechanismforreducingsurplus population”(seeO’Boyle,2006,p.6).

Otherexamplesofthesebiopoliticalpracticesincludearecentemergenceofmedical,educational,sexual,urban, moralandeconomicdevicesthroughoutthe20thcentury.Theyproduceaconstantsearchforequilibrium,normality, longevityandoptimumplanning(economicandurban).

ThecounterpartofthissystemisemphasizedbyLemke:

Theliberalrelationshipbetweenfreedomandsecurityisevenmorecomplex.Liberalismdoesnotonlyproduce freedoms,whicharepermanentlyendangered(bytheirownconditionsofproduction)andrequiremechanismsof security.Dangerandinsecurity(thethreatofunemployment,poverty,socialdegradation,etc.)arenotunwanted consequencesornegativeside-effects,butessentialconditionsandpositiveelementsofliberalfreedom.Inthis sense,liberalismnurturesdanger,itsubjectsdangertoaneconomiccalculus,weighingitsadvantagesagainstits costs.(Lemke,2011,p.46).

For Lemke, liberal ideas do not just guarantee freedoms, such as trade freedom, private propertyfreedom or self-interests freedom,but alsoorganize the conditions that individuals shouldfollow, indicatinga positiveeffect of liberalismregardinggovernmentalaction.Tothe extentthat liberalismproducedsecurity apparatuses,anatural side effectof that would be positiveand desirableconsequences (unemployment, poverty), leading toa constant maintenance of the liberal systemof power and the imposition of biopolitical practices that still remain present today.

Moreover,acultureoffeararose:howtoavoidthatanindividual’sbehaviorandinterestwouldnotbecomeadanger toanotherindividual?Foucault(2008,pp.65–67)answersthisquestionbyassertingthataglobalriskmanagement, whichinvolvedmedicalinstitutions(medicine,psychology,psychiatry,sexuality),urbanplanning,economicplanning, economic policies and allkinds of insurances and socialsecurity, would prevent that tohappen. The exerciseof biopoliticalpracticesinvolvesboththeinstitutionofStateandothernon-Stateinstitutionsrelatedtoit.

(11)

5. Concludingremarks

UnderstandingtheemergenceanddevelopmentoftheBritishclassicalpoliticaleconomyinthelightofFoucauldian genealogyprovidesahelpfulanalysisofhowtechnologiesofpoweraroseandhowtheychangedthedynamicsthat involvedtheroleofState,marketsandpopulation.Conceivingpoliticaleconomynotonlyasadiscourse,butratheras asetofpoliticalpracticesisastrategytodemonstratehowmanycontemporarypoliciesandinstitutionsemergedfrom theliberaldiscourseandhowitspreadtoStateaction.

BritishpoliticaleconomyhaditscrucialrelevanceinFoucauldiananalysisasthefirstschoolofeconomicthought thatwasabletointroduceasetoforganizedeconomicideasandpolicies,causingarethinkinginregardtotherole ofStatetowardmarketsandpopulationcare.ConceivingthewritingsofAdamSmith,DavidHume,ThomasMalthus andDavidRicardofromthegenealogicalpointofview(discontinuous,exteriorandspecific)anddividingtheminto twogenerationscontributedtoabroaderinvestigationregardingtheirmaininfluencesandpointsofviewintermsof socialandeconomicstructure.

AlthoughthesefourmainpoliticaleconomistsreconsideredtheroleofStateasasupervisorofeconomicreality, muchof their writings regardingthe regulation of thecollectivity hasbeen overlookedbyscholars of the history of economicthought. Hence,the main goalof thispaperwas toprovide abetter understandingabout thehidden connectionbetweenliberaleconomicideasandcontemporaryformsofcollectivecontrol.Itaimedatdemonstrating howtheBritishpoliticaleconomywasresponsibleforconstructinganewtechnologyofpower,thatis,biopolitics,and howFoucault’sinvestigationsregardingeconomicdiscourseshouldbereconsideredasrelevantfortherethinkingof contemporarypowerrelations.

Acknowledgement

WethankCAPESFoundation(MinistryofEducationofBrazil,Brasilia–DF,Brazil)forfinancialsupport.

References

Amariglio,J.,1988.Thebody,economicdiscourse,andpower:aneconomist’sintroductiontoFoucault.Hist.Polit.Econ.20(4),583–613.

Brewer,A.,2009.Pre-classicaleconomicsinBritain.In:Biddle,J.E.,Davis,J.B.(Eds.),ACompaniontotheHistoryofEconomicThought. BlackwellPublishing,Oxford,pp.78–111.

Deane,P.,1979.TheIndustrialRevolution.CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge.

Esposito,R.,2008.Bíos:BiopoliticsandPhilosophy.UniversityofMinnesotaPress,Minneapolis.

Foucault,M.,1971.Theorderofdiscourse.In:Young,R.(Ed.),UntyingtheText.Routledge,Boston,pp.67–69.

Foucault,M.,(R.Hurley,Trans.)1978.TheHistoryofSexualityVolume1:AnIntroduction.PantheonBooks,NewYork.

Foucault,M.,(D.Macey,Trans.)1997.SocietyMustBeDefended.Picador,NewYork.

Foucault,M.,(G.Burchell,Trans.)2004.Security,Territory,Population.Picador,NewYork.

Foucault,M.,(G.Burchell,Trans.)2008.TheBirthofBiopolitics.Picador,NewYork.

Hume,D.,2009.ATreatiseofHumanNature.TheFloatingPress,Auckland.

Lemke,T.,2011.Foucault,GovernamentalityandCritique.ParadigmPublishers,Boulder.

Lima,I.V.,2010.Foucault’sArcheologyofPoliticalEconomy.PalgraveMacmillan,London.

Magnusson,L.,2009.Mercantilism.In:Biddle,J.E.,Davis,J.B.(Eds.),ACompaniontotheHistoryofEconomicThought.BlackwellPublishing, Oxford,pp.46–60.

Malthus, T., 1836. Principles of Political Economy. Online Library of Liberty, Indianapolis, Retrieved from: http://lf-oll.s3.amazonaws. com/titles/2188/Malthus1462EBkv6.0.pdf(accessed08.01.14).

Malthus,T.,1998.AnEssayonthePrincipleofPopulation.ElectronicScholarlyPublicProject.

Mokyr,J.,2009.TheEnlightenedEconomy:BritainandtheIndustrialRevolution:1700–1850.PenguinBooks,NewYork.

O’Boyle,E.J.,2006.ClassicaleconomicsandtheGreatIrishFamine:astudyinlimits.ForumSoc.Econ.35(2),21–53.

Polanyi,K.,2001.TheGreatTransformation:ThePoliticalandEconomicOriginsofOurTime,2nded.BeaconPress,Boston.

Ricardo,D.,2001.OnthePrinciplesofPoliticalEconomyandTaxation.BatocheBooks,Kitchener.

Schumpeter,J.A.,1994.HistoryofEconomicAnalysis.OxfordUniversityPress,NewYork.

Smith,A.,1976a.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthoftheNations,vol.1.LibertyClassics,Indianapolis.

Smith,A.,1976b.AnInquiryintotheNatureandCausesoftheWealthoftheNations,vol.2.LibertyClassics,Indianapolis.

Smith,A.,1978.LecturesonJurisprudence.LibertyFund,Indianapolis.

Smith,C.,2006.AdamSmith’sPoliticalPhilosophy:TheInvisibleHandandSpontaneousOrder.Routledge,NewYork.

(12)

Tribe,K.,1978.Land,LaborandEconomicDiscourse.Routledge&KeganPaul,London.

Viner,J.,1991.EssaysontheIntellectualHistoryofEconomics.PrincetonUniversityPress,NewJersey.

Young,J.,2005.Unintendedorderandintervention:AdamSmith’sTheoryoftheroleoftheState.Hist.Polit.Econ.37(2005),91–119.