<aside>

“There are signs, even, that Political Economy, which died in infancy some hundred years ago, may have a re-birth.” — Kenneth Boulding (1956)

</aside>

In the 17th century Adam Smith defined political economy as a science practiced by statesmen and legislators with two distinct objects of study:

1. Enabling the people to provide plentiful revenue or subsistence for themselves.
2. Supplying the state with sufficient revenue to provide public services.

Smith envisioned political economy as a scientific discipline that would enrich both the people and the sovereign, and while he is often cited as “the father of modern capitalism and economics” he never spoke of capitalism or economics.

While the separation of economics from political science and increased mathematization of the discipline has empowered economists with tools that appear rigorous, there is little evidence to suggest that mainstream economics is achieving much success in advancing the ambitious goals set out by Smith.

A more useful study of how political and economic institutions interact to shape our individual and collective lives requires that social scientists move away from newtonian conceptions of perfect control and predictability, and towards the development of theoretical frameworks that support adaptivity, resilience, and broader anticipatory capacity in the population.

A systems-theoretic approach to political economy can provide a rigorous framework for reviving the classical political economy and adapting it for the modern age.

Capitalism: Its Origins and Evolution as a System of Governance