Mixed economy

A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of a market economy with elements of a planned economy,[1] markets with state interventionism,[2] or private enterprise with public enterprise.[3][4] Common to all mixed economies is a combination of free-market principles and principles of socialism.[5] While there is no single definition of a mixed economy, one definition is about a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring specifically to a capitalist market economy with strong regulatory oversight and extensive interventions into markets. Another is that of active collaboration of capitalist and socialist visions.[6] Yet another definition is apolitical in nature, strictly referring to an economy containing a mixture of private enterprise with public enterprise.[7] Alternatively, a mixed economy can refer to a reformist transitionary phase to a socialist economy that allows a substantial role for private enterprise and contracting within a dominant economic framework of public ownership. This can extend to a Soviet-type planned economy that has been reformed to incorporate a greater role for markets in the allocation of factors of production.[5]

Part of a series on
Economic systems
Major types
By ideology
By coordination
By regional model
  • Asian
    • East Asian
    • Chinese
    • Singaporean
  • European
  • Latin America
    • Socialism of the 21st century
Sectors
Property types
Transition
Coordination
Other types
  • Commons-based peer production
  • Expeditionary
  • Hunter-gatherer
  • Inclusive Democracy
  • Information
  • Manorialism
  • Newly industrialized
  • Palace
  • Plantation
  • Plutonomy
  • Post-capitalist
  • Post-industrial
  • Post-scarcity
  • Resource-based
  • Token
  • Traditional
  • Transition
  • World
  •  Business and economics portal

The idea behind a mixed economy, as advocated by John Maynard Keynes and several others, was not to abandon the capitalist mode of production but to retain a predominance of private ownership and control of the means of production, with profit-seeking enterprise and the accumulation of capital as its fundamental driving force. The difference from a laissez-faire capitalist system is that markets are subject to varying degrees of regulatory control and governments wield indirect macroeconomic influence through fiscal and monetary policies with a view to counteracting capitalism's history of boom and bust cycles, unemployment, and economic inequality.[8] In this framework, varying degrees of public utilities and essential services are provided by the government, with state activity providing public goods and universal civic requirements, including education, healthcare, physical infrastructure, and management of public lands.[9] This contrasts with laissez-faire capitalism, where state activity is limited to maintaining order and security, and providing public goods and services, as well as the legal framework for the protection of property rights and enforcement of contracts.[10][11]

About Western European economic models as championed by conservatives (Christian democrats), liberals (social liberals), and socialists (social democrats) as part of the post-war consensus,[12] a mixed economy is in practice a form of capitalism where most industries are privately owned but there is a number of utilities and essential services under public ownership,[13] usually around 15 to 20 percent.[14] In the post-war era, Western European social democracy became associated with this economic model.[15] As an economic ideal, mixed economies are supported by people of various political persuasions, in particular social democrats.[16] The contemporary capitalist welfare state has been described as a type of mixed economy in the sense of state interventionism, as opposed to a mixture of planning and markets, since economic planning was not a key feature or component of the welfare state.[17]

Overview

While there is no single all-encompassing definition of a mixed economy, there are generally two major definitions, one being political and the other apolitical. The political definition of a mixed economy refers to the degree of state interventionism in a market economy, portraying the state as encroaching onto the market under the assumption that the market is the natural mechanism for allocating resources. The political definition is limited to capitalistic economies and precludes an extension to non-capitalist systems, and aims to measure the degree of state influence through public policies in the market.[18]

The apolitical definition relates to patterns of ownership and management of economic enterprises in an economy, strictly referring to a mix of public and private ownership of enterprises in the economy and is unconcerned with political forms and public policy. Alternatively, it refers to a mixture of economic planning and markets for the allocation of resources.[19]

History

The term mixed economy arose in the context of political debate in the United Kingdom in the postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with the term had been advocated from at least the 1930s.[20] The oldest documented mixed economies in the historical record are found as early as the 4th millennium BC in the Ancient Mesopotamian civilization in city-states such as Uruk and Ebla.[21] The economies of the Ancient Greek city-states can also best be characterized as mixed economies.[22] It is also possible that the Phoenician city-states depended on mixed economies to manage trade.[23] Before being conquered by the Roman Republic, the Etruscan civilization engaged in a "strong mixed economy".[24] In general, the cities of the Ancient Mediterranean in regions such as North Africa, Iberia, and Southern France, among others, all practiced some form of a mixed economy.[25] According to the historians Michael Rostovtzeff and Pierre Lévêque, the economies of Ancient Egypt, pre-Columbian Mesoamerican, Ancient Peru, Ancient China, and the Roman Empire after Diocletian all had the basic characteristics of mixed economies.[26] After the collapse of the Western Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire in its eastern part continued to have a mixed economy until its destruction by the Ottoman Empire.[27]

Medieval Islamic societies drew their primary material basis from the classical Mediterranean mixed economies that preceded them,[28] and the economies of Islamic empires such as the Abbasid Caliphate dealt with their emerging, prominent capitalistic sectors or market economies through regulation via state, social, or religious institutions.[29] Due to having low, diffuse populations, and disconnected trade, the economies of Europe could not have supported centralized states or mixed economies and instead a primarily agrarian feudalism predominated for the centuries following the collapse of Rome. With the recovery of populations and the rise of medieval communes from the 11th century onward, economic and political power once again became centralized. According to Murray Bookchin, mixed economies, which had grown out of the medieval communes, were beginning to emerge in Europe by the 15th century as feudalism declined.[30] In 17th-century France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert acting as finance minister for Louis XIV attempted to institute a mixed economy on a national scale.[31]

The American System initially proposed by the first United States Secretary of the Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and supported by later American leaders such as Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, and Daniel Webster, exhibited the traits of a mixed economy combining protectionism, laissez-faire, and infrastructure spending.[32][33] After 1851, Napoleon III began the process of replacing the old agricultural economy of France with one that was mixed and focused on industrialization.[34] By 1914 and the start of World War I, Germany had developed a mixed economy with government co-ownership of infrastructure and industry along with a comprehensive social welfare system.[35] After the 1929 stock crash and subsequent Great Depression threw much of the global economy into a severe economic decline, British economists such as John Maynard Keynes began to advocate for economic theories that argued more government intervention in the economy.[36] Harold Macmillan, a British politician in the Conservative Party, also began to advocate for a mixed economy in his books Reconstruction (1933) and The Middle Way (1938).[36] Supporters of the mixed economy included R. H. Tawney,[37] Anthony Crosland,[38] and Andrew Shonfield, who were mostly associated with the Labour Party in the United Kingdom. During the post-war period and coinciding with the Golden Age of Capitalism, there was general worldwide rejection of laissez-faire economics as capitalist countries embraced mixed economies founded on economic planning, intervention, and welfare.[39]

Political philosophy

In the apolitical sense, the term mixed economy is used to describe economic systems that combine various elements of market economies and planned economies. As most political-economic ideologies are defined in an idealized sense, what is described rarely—if ever—exists in practice. Most would not consider it unreasonable to label an economy that, while not being a perfect representation, very closely resembles an ideal by applying the rubric that denominates that ideal. When a system in question, diverges to a significant extent from an idealized economic model or ideology, the task of identifying it can become problematic, and the term mixed economy was coined. As it is unlikely that an economy will contain a perfectly even mix, mixed economies are usually noted as being skewed towards either private ownership or public ownership, toward capitalism or socialism, or a market economy or command economy in varying degrees.[40]

Catholic social teaching

Jesuit author David Hollenbach has argued that Catholic social teaching calls for a "new form" of mixed economy. He refers back to Pope Pius XI's statement that government "should supply help to the members of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them".[41] Hollenbach writes that a socially just mixed economy involves labor, management, and the state working together through a pluralistic system that distributes economic power widely.[42] Pope Francis has criticised neoliberalism throughout his papacy and encouraged state welfare programs for "the redistribution of wealth, looking out for the dignity of the poorest who risk always ending up crushed by the powerful".[43] In Evangelii gaudium, he states: "Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naïve trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting."[44]

Catholic social teaching opposes both unregulated capitalism and state socialism. Subsequent scholars have noted that conceiving of subsidiarity as a "top-down, government-driven political exercise" requires a selective reading of 1960s encyclicals. A more comprehensive reading of Catholic social teaching suggests a conceptualization of subsidiarity as a "bottom-up concept" that is "rooted in recognition of a common humanity, not in the political equivalent of noblese oblige".[45]

Fascism

Although fascism is primarily a political ideology that stresses the importance of cultural and social issues over economics, it is generally supportive of a broadly capitalistic mixed economy. It supports state interventionism into markets and private enterprise, alongside a fascist corporatist framework, referred to as a third position that ostensibly aims to be a middle-ground between socialism and capitalism by mediating labor and business disputes to promote national unity. 20th-century fascist regimes in Italy and Germany adopted large public works programs to stimulate their economies and state interventionism in largely private sector-dominated economies to promote re-armament and national interests. During World War II, Germany implemented a war economy that combined a free market with central planning. The Nazi government collaborated with leading German business interests, who supported the war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, the suppression of trade unions, and the allowance of cartels and monopolies.[46] Scholars have drawn parallels between the American New Deal and public works programs promoted by fascism, arguing that fascism similarly arose in response to the threat of socialist revolution and aimed to "save capitalism" and private property.[47]

Socialism

Mixed economies understood as a mixture of socially owned and private enterprises have been predicted and advocated by various socialists as a necessary transitional form between capitalism and socialism. Additionally, several proposals for socialist systems call for a mixture of different forms of enterprise ownership including a role for private enterprise. For example, Alexander Nove's conception of feasible socialism outlines an economic system based on a combination of state enterprises for large industries, worker and consumer cooperatives, private enterprises for small-scale operations, and individually-owned enterprises.[48] The social democratic theorist Eduard Bernstein advocated a form of a mixed economy, believing that a mixed system of state-owned enterprises, cooperatives, and private enterprises would be necessary for a long period before capitalism would evolve of its own accord into socialism.[49]

Following the Russian Civil War, Vladimir Lenin adopted the New Economic Policy in the Soviet Union; the introduction of a mixed economy serving as a temporary expedient for rebuilding the nation. The policy eased the restrictions of war communism and allowed a return of markets, where private individuals could administer small and medium sized enterprises, while the state would control large industries, banks and foreign trade.[50] The Socialist Republic of Vietnam describes its economy as a socialist-oriented market economy that consists of a mixture of public, private, and cooperative enterprise—a mixed economy that is oriented toward the long-term development of a socialist economy. The People's Republic of China adopted a socialist market economy, which represents an early stage of socialist development according to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The CCP takes the Marxist–Leninist position that an economic system containing diverse forms of ownership—but with the public sector playing a decisive role—is a necessary characteristic of an economy in the preliminary stage of developing socialism.[51]

In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternative path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism.[52] In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property and a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism, and the welfare state. Social democratic governments in practice largely maintain the capitalist mode of production (factor markets, private property, and wage labor) under a mixed economy,[53][54][55] and pledge to reform capitalism and make society more egalitarian and democratic.[56]

Typology

Mix of free markets and state intervention

This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[8] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system, and economic competition wih antitrust laws. Most contemporary market-oriented economies fall under this category, including the economy of the United States.[57][58] The term is also used to describe the economies of countries that feature extensive welfare states, such as the Nordic model practiced by the Nordic countries, which combine free markets with an extensive welfare state.[59][60]

The American School is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-20th century.[61] It consisted of three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861–1932; changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932–the 1970s), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements, and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises. During this period, the United States grew into the largest economy in the world, surpassing the United Kingdom by 1880.[62][63][64] The social market economy is the economic policy of modern Germany that steers a middle path between the goals of social democracy and capitalism within the framework of a private market economy and aims at maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, and public welfare and public services by using state intervention. Under its influence, Germany emerged from desolation and defeat to become an industrial giant within the European Union.[65]

Mix of private and public enterprise

This type of mixed economy specifically refers to a mixture of private and public ownership of industry and the means of production. As such, it is sometimes described as a "middle path" or transitional state between capitalism and socialism but can also refer to a mixture of state capitalism with private capitalism. Examples include the economies of China, Norway, Singapore, and Vietnam—all of which feature large state-owned enterprise sectors operating alongside large private sectors. The French economy featured a large state sector from 1945 until 1986, mixing a substantial amount of state-owned enterprises and nationalized firms with private enterprises.[66]

Following the Chinese economic reforms initiated in 1978, the Chinese economy has reformed its state-owned enterprises and allowed greater scope for private enterprises to operate alongside the state and collective sectors. In the 1990s, the central government concentrated its ownership in strategic sectors of the economy, but local and provincial level state-owned enterprises continue to operate in almost every industry including information technology, automobiles, machinery, and hospitality. The latest round of state-owned enterprise reform initiated in 2013 stressed increased dividend payouts of state enterprises to the central government and mixed-ownership reform which includes partial private investment into state-owned firms. As a result, many nominally private-sector firms are partially state-owned by various levels of government and state institutional investors, and many state-owned enterprises are partially privately owned resulting in a mixed ownership economy.[67]

Mix of markets and economic planning

This type of mixed economy refers to a combination of economic planning with market forces for the guiding of production in an economy and may coincide with a mixture of private and public enterprise. It can include capitalist economies with indicative macroeconomic planning policies and socialist planned economies that introduced market forces into their economies such as in Hungary's Goulash Communism, which inaugurated the New Economic Mechanism reforms in 1968 that introduced market processes into its planned economy. Under this system, firms were still publicly owned but not subject to physical production targets and output quotas specified by a national plan. Firms were attached to state ministries that had the power to merge, dissolve and reorganize them and which established the firm's operating sector. Enterprises had to acquire their inputs and sell their outputs in markets, eventually eroding away at the Soviet-style planned economy. Dirigisme was an economic policy initiated under Charles de Gaulle in France, designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence through indicative planning. In the period of dirigisme, the French state used indicative economic planning to supplement market forces for guiding its market economy. It involved state control of industries such as transportation, energy and telecommunication infrastructures as well as various incentives for private corporations to merge or engage in certain projects. Under its influence, France experienced what is called Thirty Glorious Years of profound economic growth.[65]

Green New Deal (GND) proposals call for social and economic reforms to address climate change and economic inequality using economic planning with market forces for the guiding of production. The reforms involve phasing out fossil fuels through the implementation of a carbon price and emission regulations, while increasing state spending on renewable energy. Additionally, it calls for greater welfare spending, public housing, and job security. GND proposals seek to maintain capitalism but involve economic planning to reduce carbon emissions and inequality through increased taxation, social spending, and state ownership of essential utilities such as the electrical grid.[68]

Within political discourse, mixed economies are supported by people of various political leanings, particularly the centre-left and centre-right. Debate reigns over the appropriate levels of private and public ownership, capitalism and socialism, and government planning within an economy. The centre-left usually supports markets but argues for a higher degree of regulation, public ownership, and planning within an economy. The centre-right generally accepts some level of public ownership and government intervention but argues for lower government regulation and greater privatisation. In 2010, Australian economist John Quiggin wrote: "The experience of the twentieth century suggests that a mixed economy will outperform both central planning and laissez-faire. The real question for policy debates is one of determining the appropriate mix and the way in which the public and private sectors should interact."[69]

Criticism

Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a mixed economy when understood to be a mixture of capitalism and socialism. Critics who argue that capitalism and socialism cannot coexist believe either market logic or economic planning must be prevalent within an economy.[70]

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism.[71] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy mixed because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty as they would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits, or at the least try to minimize costs, and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[72] Friedrich von Hayek and Mises argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy, and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Belloc called "the servile state".[73]

Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a middle ground between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drive the economy or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation, such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive the economy. From the Great Depression onward, extant mixed economies in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because the economic system remains based on competition and profit production.[74]

See also

Sources and notes
  1. Gorman, Tom. The Complete Idiot's Guide to Economics, Alpha Books (2003), p. 9. "In a market economy, the private-sector businesses and consumers decide what they will produce and purchase, with little government intervention. ... In a command economy, also known as a planned economy, the government largely determines what is produced and in what amounts. In a mixed economy, both market forces and government decisions determine which goods and services are produced and how they are distributed."
  2. Schiller, Bradley. The Micro Economy Today, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010, p. 15. "Mixed economy - An economy that uses both market signals and government directives to allocate goods and resources." This follows immediately from a discussion on command economies and market mechanism.
  3. Stilwell, Frank J. B. (2006). Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195551273. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
  4. Hendricks, Jean and Gaoreth D. Myles. Intermediate Public Economics, The MIT Press, 2006, p. 4 "the mixed economy where individual decisions are respected but the government attempts to affect these through the policies it implements".
  5. Young, Greg. "Mixed Economy". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. Retrieved 30 December 2021. Alternatively, a mixed economy can emerge when a socialist government makes exceptions to the rule of state ownership to capture economic benefits from private ownership and free-market incentives. A combination of free market principles of private contracting and socialist principles of state ownership or planning is common to all mixed economies.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  6. Mander, Jerry (2012). The Capitalism Papers: Fatal Flaws of an Obsolete System. Counterpoint. pp. 213–217. ISBN 978-1582437170.
  7. Brown, Douglas (11 November 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794. The apolitical definition of 'mixed economy' generally refers to the mix of public and private ownership forms. ... Here 'mixed economy' itself does not specify a political form. it means an economy characterized by a combination of public and private ownership as well as planning and markets.
  8. Pollin, Robert (2007). "Resurrection of the Rentier" (July–August). Book review of Andrew Glyn's Capitalism Unleashed: Finance, Globalization, and Welfare. In New Left Review (46): 141–142. "The underlying premise behind the mixed economy was straightforward. Keynes and like-minded reformers were not willing to give up on capitalism, and in particular, two of its basic features: that ownership and control of the economy's means of production would remain primarily in the hands of private capitalists; and that most economic activity would be guided by 'market forces', that is, the dynamic combination of material self-seeking and competition. More specifically, the driving force of the mixed economy, as with free-market capitalism, should continue to be capitalists trying to make as much profit as they can. At the same time, Keynes was clear that in maintaining a profit-driven marketplace, it was also imperative to introduce policy interventions to counteract capitalism's inherent tendencies—demonstrated to devastating effect during the 1930s calamity—toward financial breakdowns, depressions, and mass unemployment. Keynes's framework also showed how full employment and social welfare interventions could be justified not simply on grounds of social uplift, but could also promote the stability of capitalism."
  9. Rees, Merlyn (1973). The Public Sector in the Mixed Economy. Bratsford. p. 240. ISBN 978-0713413724.
  10. "Laissez-faire". Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 2 March 2021. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  11. Wu, Yu-Shan (1995). Comparative Economic Transformations: Mainland China, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and Taiwan. Stanford University Press. p. 8. In laissez-faire capitalism, the state restricts itself to providing public goods and services that the economy cannot generate by itself and to safeguarding private ownership and the smooth operation of the self-regulating market.
  12. "Mixed economy". Britannica.com. Retrieved 5 February 2022.
  13. Miller, David (1998). "Social Democracy". In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8. Routledge. ISBN 9780415187138.
  14. Batson, Andrew (March 2017). "The State of the State Sector". Gavekal Dragonomics. p. 4. Retrieved 19 August 2020. "While some may find these estimates low, they are not. Even in the statist 1960s–70s, SOEs in France and the UK did not account for more than 15–20% of capital formation; in the 1980s the developed-nation average was around 8%, and it dropped below 5% in the 1990s. SOEs' role in China is many times larger."
  15. Craig, Edward (June 1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 8. Routledge. p. 827. ISBN 978-0415187138. In the second, mainly post-war, phase, social democrats came to believe that their ideals and values could be achieved by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it. They favored a mixed economy in which most industries would be privately owned, with only a small number of utilities and other essential services in public ownership.
  16. "Social democracy". Jason P. Abbot. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Ed. R. J. Barry Jones. Taylor & Francis, 2001. 1410
  17. O'Hara, Phillip Anthony, ed. (1999). "Welfare state". Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 1247. ISBN 0-415-24187-1. The welfare state emerged in the twentieth century as one institutional form of this socially protective response. In the 1930s, the responses of emerging welfare states to the Great Depression were to the immediate circumstances of massive unemployment, lost output, and collapse of the financial and trading systems. Planning was not a key element in the response to the crisis of capitalism. Instead, the character of welfare state intervention can best be described as an 'interventionist drift', reflecting the spontaneous, uncoordinated reactions of the protective response.
  18. Brown, Douglas (11 November 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794. There are in general two broad yet distinguishable definitions of 'mixed economy': a political definition and an apolitical definition. The political definition refers to the degree of state intervention in what is a market economy. Thus this definition 'portray[s] the phenomenon in terms of state encroaching upon the market and thereby suggest[s] that market is the natural or preferable mechanism. ... The political definition of 'mixed economy' precludes extending it to non-capitalist systems.
  19. Brown, Douglas (11 November 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794. The apolitical definition of 'mixed economy' generally refers to the mix of public and private ownership forms. ... Here 'mixed economy' itself does not specify a political form. it means an economy characterized by a combination of public and private ownership as well as planning and markets.
  20. Reisman, David A. Theories of the Mixed Economy (Theories of the mixed economy). Pickering & Chatto Ltd. ISBN 1-85196-214-X.
  21. Karl Moore; David Charles Lewis (2 June 2009). The Origins of Globalization. Routledge. pp. 24–25, 36. ISBN 978-1-135-97008-6.
  22. Signe Isager; Jens Erik Skydsgaard (3 April 2013). Ancient Greek Agriculture: An Introduction. Routledge. p. 202. ISBN 978-1-134-81827-3.
  23. Terostra, Taco (9 April 2019). Trade in the Ancient Mediterranean: Private Order and Public Institutions. Princeton University Press. p. 48. ISBN 978-0-691-18970-3.
  24. Dunstan, William E. (16 November 2010). Ancient Rome. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-7425-6834-1.
  25. The Cambridge Economic History of Europe from the Decline of the Roman Empire: Trade and industry in the Middle Ages. The University Press. 1941. p. 35. ISBN 9780521087100.
  26. Douglas, Jack D. (29 September 2017). The Myth of the Welfare State. Taylor & Francis. p. 339. ISBN 978-1-351-47905-9.
  27. Oaks, Dumbarton (1986). Continuity and Change in Late Byzantine and Early Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May 1982. University of Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies. p. 59. ISBN 978-0-7044-0748-0.
  28. Professor W Montgomery Watt; Pierre Cachia (1977). A History of Islamic Spain. Transaction Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-4128-4471-0.
  29. Turner, Bryan S. (1998). Weber and Islam. Psychology Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-415-17458-9.
  30. White, Damian F. (20 October 2008). Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal. Pluto Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-7453-1965-0.
  31. Nationalization and Privatization in Contemporary France. Hoover Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-8179-5153-5.
  32. Fels, Rendigs (1961). Challenge to the American Economy: An Introduction to Economics. Allyn and Bacon. p. 39.
  33. Frederick William Preston; Ronald Wayne Smith (1988). Sociology: A Contemporary Approach. Allyn and Bacon. p. 501. ISBN 978-0-205-11384-2.
  34. Philip J. Adler; Randall L. Pouwels (28 September 2016). World Civilizations (8 ed.). Cengage Learning. p. 442. ISBN 978-1-337-51764-5. OCLC 1100703755.
  35. Michael Charles Howard; John Edward King (14 July 2014). A History of Marxian Economics, Volume I: 1883-1929. Princeton University Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-4008-6052-4.
  36. Pekka Suvanto; trans Roderick Fletcher (7 March 2016). Conservatism from the French Revolution to the 1990s. Springer. pp. 105–106. ISBN 978-1-349-25888-8.
  37. Tawney, R. H. (1964). Equality. London: Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-04-323014-8.
  38. Crosland, Anthony (1977). The Future of socialism. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-8371-9586-1.
  39. Guichard, Sylvie; Mehrotra, Santosh (29 October 2020). Planning in the 20th Century and Beyond: India's Planning Commission and the NITI Aayog. Cambridge University Press. p. 285. ISBN 978-1-108-49462-5.
  40. Vuong, Quan-Hoang. Financial Markets in Vietnam's Transition Economy: Facts, Insights, Implications. ISBN 978-3-639-23383-4, VDM Verlag, February 2010, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany.
  41. Pius XI (15 May 1931). Quadragesimo Anno. Paragraph 79. Retrieved 12 August 2018. The papal text refers to "every social activity", not only to government.
  42. Hollenbach, David (1984). "Unemployment and Jobs: A Theological and Ethical Perspective". In Houck, John; Williams, Oliver (eds.). Catholic social teaching and the United States economy: working papers for a bishops' pastoral. University Press of America. pp. 132–133.
  43. "Pope: Taxation should favor wealth redistribution for public services". Vatican News. 31 January 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
  44. "Pope Francis understands economics better than most politicians". The Guardian. 27 November 2013. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
  45. Denis O'Brien (2014). "Subsidiarity and Solidarity". In Booth, Phillip (ed.). Catholic social teaching and the market economy. The Institute of Economic Affairs. p. 454.
  46. Scherner, Jonas (2006). "Industrial Investment in Nazi Germany: The Forgotten Wartime Boom". Archived 27 November 2021 at the Wayback Machine Yale University. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  47. Gupta, Dipankar (18 June 1977). "The Political Economy of Fascism". Economic and Political Weekly. 12 (25): 987–992.
  48. Nove, Alexander. "Feasible Socialism: Market or Plan – Or Both". Archived 25 September 2017 at the Wayback Machine What Next Journal. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
  49. Steger, Manfred B. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism: Eduard Bernstein And Social Democracy. Cambridge, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pg. 146.
  50. "The New Economic Policy (NEP)". Alpha History. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  51. "Socialist Market Economic System". Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. 25 June 2004. Retrieved 8 February 2018. The development of the economic system with public ownership playing a dominant role and diverse forms of ownership developing side by side is a basic characteristic of the socialist economic system at the preliminary stage. This is decided by the quality of socialism and the national situation in the preliminary stage: first, China, as a socialist country, should persist in public ownership as the base of the socialist economy; second, China, as in its preliminary stage, should develop diverse forms of ownership on condition that the public ownership plays a dominant role
  52. Adams 1993, pp. 102–103: "The emergence of social democracy was partly a result of the Cold War. People argued that if the Stalinist Soviet empire, where the state-controlled everything, showed socialism in action, then socialism was not worth having. ... The consensus policies of a mixed and managed economy and the welfare state, developed by the post-war Labour government, seemed in themselves to provide a basis for viable socialism that would combine prosperity and freedom with social justice and the possibility of a full life for everyone. They could be seen as a compromise between socialism and capitalism."
  53. Miller 1998, p. 827: "In the second, mainly post-war, phase, social democrats came to believe that their ideals and values could be achieved by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it. They favored a mixed economy in which most industries would be privately owned, with only a small number of utilities and other essential services in public ownership."
  54. Jones 2001, p. 1410: "In addition, particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society."
  55. Heywood 2012, pp. 125–128: "As an ideological stance, social democracy took shape around the mid-twentieth century, resulting from the tendency among western socialist parties not only to adopt parliamentary strategies but also to revise their socialist goals. In particular, they abandoned the goal of abolishing capitalism and sought instead to reform or 'humanize' it. Social democracy, therefore, came to stand for a broad balance between the market economy, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other."
  56. Weisskopf 1992, p. 10: "Thus social democrats do not try to do away with either the market or private property ownership; instead, they attempt to create conditions in which the operation of a capitalist market economy will lead to more egalitarian outcomes and encourage more democratic and more solidaristic practices than would a more conventional capitalist system."
  57. "U.S. Economy - Basic Conditions & Resources". U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Germany. "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles." Retrieved 24 October 2011.
  58. (4)Outline of the U.S. Economy – (2)How the U.S. Economy Works. U.S. Embassy Information Resource Center. "As a result, the American economy is perhaps better described as a "mixed" economy, with the government playing an important role along with private enterprise. Although Americans often disagree about exactly where to draw the line between their beliefs in both free enterprise and government management, the mixed economy they have developed has been remarkably successful." Retrieved 24 October 2011.
  59. Lahti, Arto. Globalization & the Nordic Success Model: Part II. 2010. Arto Lahti & Ventus Publishing ApS. p 60. ISBN 978-87-7681-550-9.
  60. Eds. Johan Fritzell, Bjorn Hvinden, Mikko Kautto, Jon Kvist, Hannu Uusitalo. The Nordic Welfare States in the European Context. 2001. Routledge. p 3. ISBN 0-415-24161-8.
  61. "The Progressive Movement". United States History. Retrieved 12 February 2011.
  62. Pugh, Martin.The Making of Modern British Politics. .
  63. O'Brien, Robert; Williams, Marc. Global Political Economy. .
  64. See the following sources:
    • Gill: "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed the UK as industrial leader of the world.: (from Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy Chapter 6 titled "America becomes Number 1" pg. 39–49 – published 1990 by Praeger Publishers in the USA – ISBN 0-275-93316-4)
    • Lind: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865–1932, by presiding over the industrialization of the United States, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped. ... Hamiltonian side ... the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives ... ." (from Hamilton's Republic Introduction pg. xiv-xv – published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA – ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
    • Lind: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the 'American School' of developmental economic nationalism. ... The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods. ... The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the 'American System' of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from Hamilton's Republic Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229–230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA – ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
    • Richardson: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded ... 'Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes ... for ordinary expenses of Government.' (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA – ISBN 0-674-36213-6)
    • Boritt: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leonard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a 'blueprint for modern America'. ... The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate variety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pg. 196–197 published 1994 by University of Illinois Press in the USA – ISBN 0-252-06445-3
  65. Gardner, Martin (1991). Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. St. Martin's Press.
  66. Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. (2004). Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0262182348. After World War II a wave of nationalizations occurred, affecting the Bank of France, the four largest commercial banks, the four leading groups of insurance companies, all-electric power and gas producers, the coal mining industry, Air France, and the Renault automobile company (the last specifically because of wartime collaboration with the Nazis by its owner). Until 1981 no other firms were nationalized, although occasionally new public enterprises were created from scratch or the government bought part of ownership, as it did with Dassault Aircraft in 1978. Until 1986 none of these industries were denationalized.
  67. Fan, He (9 January 2015). "The long march to the mixed economy in China". East Asia Forum. East Asia Forum. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
  68. "The Green New Deal Explained". Investopedia. Retrieved 2 March 2022.
  69. Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us, John Quiggin, Princeton University Press, 2010, p. 78. The author made this statement in his chapter which is sharply critical of the strong version of "The Efficient Market Hypothesis", especially as it pertains to financial markets.
  70. "Mixed Economic System". Investopedia. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
  71. Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0-8659-7631-3. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalistic and in part socialist.
  72. Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A Treatise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0-8659-7631-3. The fact that the state or municipalities own and operate some plants does not alter the characteristic features of a market economy. These publicly owned and operated enterprises are subject to the sovereignty of the market. They must fit themselves, as buyers of raw materials, equipment, and labor, and as sellers of goods and services, into the scheme of the market economy. They are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits, or at least, to avoid losses.
  73. Gardner, Martin (1991). Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener. St. Martin's Press. p. 126.
  74. Mattick, Paul (1969). "State-Capitalism and The Mixed Economi". The Limits of the Mixed Economy. Boston, Massachusetts: Extending Horizons Books/Porter Sargent Publisher. Retrieved 17 January 2014 – via Marxists Internet Archive. To be sure, 'orthodox Marxism' maintains that the mixed economy is still the capitalism of old, just as 'orthodox' bourgeois theory insists that the mixed economy is a camouflaged form of socialism. Generally, however, both the state-capitalist and mixed economies are recognized as economic systems adhering to the principle of progress by way of capital accumulation.

Further reading
  • Buchanan, James M. (1986) Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s New York University Press.
  • Buckwitz, George D. (1991) America’s Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
  • Gross, Kyle B. (1991) The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. New York: Routledge.
  • Rosin, Kirk (1992). "Economic theory and the welfare state: a survey and interpretation". Journal of Economic Literature. 30 (2): 741–803. A review essay looking at the economics literature.
  • Sanford Ikeda (1997). Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism. London: Routledge.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.