首页> 外文期刊>Economic geography >Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire
【24h】

Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire

机译:重塑重商主义:近代英国及其帝国的政治经济学

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

Mercantilism as a construction has always been problematic. The concept of a "mercantile system," as the editors of this stimulating collection acknowledge, was coined by Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations (1776), primarily as a negative other against which his arguments about political economy could be pitched. As such, there was not a body of theorists who framed themselves as mercantilists in their arguments about economic policy and theory in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, this being in stark contrast with a concept such as, for example, "the Enlightenment," where French savants and indeed the circle of Scottish literati of which Smith was himself a part routinely framed their efforts in terms of light and illumination. Resultantly, it is not wholly clear who or what should be deemed to represent mercantilism. One might argue that there is a spectrum of possible understandings of what mercantilism encompasses, ranging from the narrow to the broad. At the narrow end would be the argument that mercantilism was cored around a seventeenth-century bullionist argument that a strong polity is one that maximizes specie flowing into and being retained in its coffers. Such a narrow conception would have the spin-off argument that state policy, including warfare as well as international trade, would have as its main aim ensuring the retention of bullion in the home nation. At the broad end of the spectrum, mercantilism becomes a catch-all category for all forms of political-economic argumentation in the era before Adam Smith and the French economistes of the mid-eighteenth century. In general terms, Mercantilism Reimagined works at the broader end of the spectrum of definitions, and it does so because, structurally, the essays as a whole build the argument that mercantilism was a far more nuanced, diverse, and flexible construct than Adam Smith's depiction of the mercantile system would have one imagine.
机译:商业化作为一种​​结构一直存在问题。正如这本令人振奋的书集的编辑所承认的那样,“商品体系”的概念是亚当·斯密(Adam Smith)在他的《国际财富》(1776年)中提出的,主要是作为反面的,可以用来反对他关于政治经济学的观点。因此,在十七和十八世纪,没有一群理论家将自己重商主义化为经济政策和理论的论点,这与诸如“启蒙运动”之类的概念形成鲜明对比。法国专家和确实是苏格兰文人圈的史密斯本人也经常在照明和照明方面制定自己的努力。结果,尚不清楚应由谁或什么代表重商主义。有人可能会争辩说,重商主义涵盖了各种各样的可能的理解,从狭义到广泛。狭义的论点是,重商主义以十七世纪的金银主义者的论点为核心,即强力的政体是最大化流入和保留在其金库中的物种的政体。这种狭narrow的概念会产生一些副产品,即包括战争和国际贸易在内的国家政策将以确保金条留在本国为主要目标。在广泛的范围内,重商主义已成为亚当·斯密和亚美·史密斯(Adam Smith)以及18世纪中叶法国经济学家之前的时代中所有形式的政治经济论证的万能类别。一般而言,《重商主义的重塑》在定义范围的更广范围内起作用,它之所以如此,是因为从结构上讲,从总体上讲,论文认为重商主义比亚当·斯密的描写更加细微,多样和灵活。商业体系的发展将有一个想象。

著录项

  • 来源
    《Economic geography》 |2014年第4期|451-452|共2页
  • 作者

    Robert J. Mayhew;

  • 作者单位

    University of Bristol;

  • 收录信息
  • 原文格式 PDF
  • 正文语种 eng
  • 中图分类
  • 关键词

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号