Historical political economy serves the building of an independent knowledge system via interdisciplinary perspectives. Photo: TUCHONG  

At first glance, the term “historical political economy” may seem rather odd. Scholars engaged in Marxist political economy may argue that political economy itself already includes a historical dimension, rendering “historical” an apparently redundant qualifier. The problem, however, is that historical analysis or historical perspective is rarely a focus in the teaching and research of political economy, with few exceptions such as Karl H. Marx’s analysis of the “working day” and “primitive accumulation of capital” in Das Kapital, which concentrates on historical analysis. Of course, the long-wave theory is another exception. Therefore, whether it involves underscoring the historical aspects of political economy as emphasized by Marx and Friedrich Von Engels, returning historical materialism to reality from its “abstract” state, or highlighting the convergence of economic history and political economy, the term “historical political economy” is meaningful. As a prefix, “historical” serves less as a redundancy and more of a “distinctive” identifier. 

Definition

It is somewhat regrettable that the first academic definition of historical political economy did not come from Marxist political economists. According to The Oxford Handbook of Historical Political Economy, historical political economy draws insights from three foundational disciplines: economics, political science, and history, and must also collaborate with other interdisciplinary fields within these three disciplines. It sits at the convergence of economics, political science, and history, as well as at the intersection of economic history, political history, and political economy. So, where is the boundary between historical political economy and other interdisciplinary fields? Jeffery A. Jenkins and Jared Rubin, the handbook’s editors, believe that historical political economy research must meet three criteria: first, it should attempt to derive testable hypotheses; second, it should strive to understand and explain historical context; and third, it must incorporate elements of political economy. 

Neoclassical & Marxist economics

Clearly, the disciplinary definition and delimitation criteria of historical political economy are relatively broad, indicating that this discipline does not yet have a unified theoretical paradigm and research method. Currently, historical political economy research primarily follows two theoretical traditions, namely the Marxist economics tradition and the neoclassical economics tradition. The theoretical foundation of the former is historical materialism, while the analytical paradigm of the latter relies on cost-benefit analysis based on rational choice. 

The neoclassical economics pathway in historical political economy is a direct product of the “Cliometric Revolution” that emerged in the 1960s. Harold Conrad and John R. Meyer pioneered the application of cost-benefit analysis to the economic efficiency of slavery in the southern United States, marking the beginning of this revolution. Subsequently, as a representative work of this revolution, The Rise of the Western World, by Douglass C. North and Robert P. Thomas, provided the key theoretical tools for this school of historical political economy by applying cost-benefit analysis to macro-level institutional analysis, thereby analyzing institutional changes and economic growth. Under the influence of the “second revolution” in the late 20th century and early 21st century, the tendency of historical political economy became more prominent. Researchers moved beyond traditional issues in economic history and began to use the analytical tools at hand to explore the historical roots of current socioeconomic phenomena, even directly studying non-economic topics, especially political science. The study by Daron Acemoglu et al. on the relationship between institutions and growth via the novel instrumental variable of early colony mortality is a representative work of exploring historical roots. With the rapid development of new political economy, in recent years, the neoclassical economics approach to historical political economy research has almost entirely encompassed the intersection of new political economy and economic history, mainly using theories and methods of new political economy to explain and test economic history phenomena or hypotheses. 

The Marxist economics approach to historical political economy is marked by a distinct focus on institutional analysis of accumulation, exemplified by the Social Structure of Accumulation (SSA) theory. In theoretical research, SSA theory mainly focuses on the capital accumulation process determined by profit rates, but researchers place emphasis on the social structures necessary to sustain profit rate levels over specific periods. Samuel Bowles et al. believe that the social structure of accumulation mainly comprises four key dimensions: capital-labor relationships, which pertain to labor-management dynamics within production organization; capital-capital relationships, or the real-world market structure; domestic-foreign relationships, reflecting the ability of the state to influence trade conditions through political or military strength; and capital-citizen agreements, whereby citizens exert some regulatory control over capital through the state apparatus. These four dimensions influence profit rates through factors such as actual wages, labor intensity, trade conditions, profit tax rates, and utilization rates of production technology and choice of production technology. In empirical research, such studies not only pay attention to the recent formation of the social structure of accumulation and its impact on the current profit rate, but are also keen to explore the consolidation and decline of the social structure of accumulation in history. Some studies have reinterpreted the origin of the United Kingdom’s decline based on SSA theory, believing that the UK’s economic decline in the late Victorian era did not necessarily manifest itself in economic performance indicators, but in institutional factors that were unfavorable to capital accumulation. Similarly, Giovanni Arrighi, in analyzing the accumulation process in an open economy, did not limit himself to a purely economic perspective, but instead chose to examine the formation and evolution of the global capitalist system. From these studies, it can be seen that Marxist historical political economy research does not merely focus on pure economic causality, but has a broader social analysis perspective. 

In general, compared to the neoclassical economics path, the Marxist economics approach to historical political economy has made slower progress. However, the historical awareness of Marxist economics is a clear advantage of this path. Neoclassical economics itself lacks a sense of history and always aims for universally applicable theories. Therefore, “history” for neoclassical economics is merely boring data and samples, rather than a vibrant and dynamic history of economic activities that reflect different stages of human development. Since they define historical events as events that occurred in a specific social or institutional environment that no longer exists, neoclassical economics and certain political theories often limit the objects of historical political economy research to events that occurred before a specific period. In contrast, Marxist economics has always held that economic laws or theories are historical context-dependent, and that timeless economic theories are dubious. In terms of defining history, Marxist economics tends to agree with the view put forward by Italian historian Benedetto Croce that “all history is contemporary history.” They view historical political economy as a historical perspective, understanding it as a field that explores political and economic phenomena and problems through a historical lens, without excluding studies beyond a certain historical node. 

Knowledge system 

Historical political economy stands at the crossroads of disciplines, being both a platform for applying interdisciplinary perspectives to solve specific research problems and an attempt to build a comprehensive social science knowledge system. Given the diverse academic backgrounds of scholars in this field, disagreements often arise, which usually manifest as “collisions” between social science researchers and historians in terms of research methods and interpretation frameworks. Considering the necessity of interdisciplinary cooperation and the genuine skill complementarity among scholars, these difficulties can be overcome. Previous researchers have proposed three feasible interdisciplinary cooperation modes: asynchronous collaboration, direct collaboration, and institutional collaboration. While divisions of labor and evaluation systems within disciplines are objective realities, they do not prevent social science and history researchers from coming together for common research problems, seeking convergence while respecting differences for the sake of truth. Ultimately, historical political economy research is poised to move towards a more brilliant future. 

Gao Ling is an associate professor from the Lingnan College at Sun Yat-sen University.

Edited by ZHAO YUAN