Cropsey - Political Science and Economics

8/12/2019 Cropsey - Political Science and Economics

1/13

On the Relation of Political Science and Economics

Author(s): Joseph CropseyReviewed work(s):Source: The American Political Science Review, Vol. 54, No. 1 (Mar., 1960), pp. 3-14Published by: American Political Science AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1952405.

Accessed: 31/08/2012 12:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

American Political Science Associationis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

The American Political Science Review.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1952405?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1952405?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=apsa


2/13

The AmericanPolitical Science ReviewVOL. LIV MARCH, 1960 NO. 1ON THE RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCEAND ECONOMICS*

JOSEPH CROPSEYUniversity f Chicago

That politics and economic ifehave much to do with each other s aremarkmatched n self-evidence nly by the parallel observation hatpolitical science and economics are of mutual interest.All the morestriking hen is the difficulty ne meets in attempting o state withprecisionhow politics and economic ife,or how political science andeconomics re related.I

Considerfor xamplethe view thatpolitics s the ceaselesscompetitionof nterested roups.Except under veryrareconditions, s for nstancethe absenceofdivisionof abor, economiccircumstanceswillpreoccupythewakinghours ofmost men at most times. Theirpreoccupationswillexpressthemselves n the formation f organizations,or at least in-terested roups,witheconomicfoundations. olitics, o far s interestmeans economic nterest which t does largely,but not exclusively),is themutualadjustmentofeconomicpositions; nd to that extent, herelationbetween politicsand economic life seems to be that politicalactivitygrowsout ofeconomic activity.But the competition f the in-terests s, after ll, an organized affair, arried out in accordance withrules called laws and constitutions. o perhaps the legal framework,heconstruction f whichsurely deserves to be called political,supervenesoverthe clashingofmere nterests nd even prescribeswhich nterestsmay presentthemselvesat the contest. Thus politics appears to beprimaryn its own right.But we are compelledto go a step further:snot the legal frameworktselfa directconsequence of the rivalriesofself-seekers,o that even the fundamental aw or laws merelygive ex-pressionto stillmorefundamentalfacts of life? We find ourselvesat

* I am grateful to the Rockefeller Foundation fortheir support ofmy study in prepara-tion forthe writingof this paper.3


3/13

4 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWlast askingwhether olitics s simply heextension feconomic ctivity,as war was once said to be the extensionofdiplomacy; orwhether, nthe otherhand, economiclife s determinedn its most importantre-spectsby acts oflegislation rreducible o anythingbut a judgmentofthegeneralwelfare.But perhaps we have strayed in our reasoning,and the questionwhether oliticalor economicactivity s primary s not the rightques-tion. Perhaps instead we ought to begin by observingthat there ispolitical ife ndthere seconomic ife.They are related nthattheybothoccupy the same space, in a mannerofspeaking,a space looselycalledsociety.There is a political aspect ofsociety and there s an economicaspect.Questionsofpowerare settledunderthe one,questionsofwealthare settled underthe other.Certainly,wealth may conferpower andpowermay occasion wealth,but this does not diminish he differencebetween the two objects or between the activitiesby whichtheyaresought and gained. If we pay attentionfor a moment to the socialsciences hat nvestigate hesematters, amelypolitical cience and eco-nomics,we noticehow ittle nclined ach is to assert ts primacy overtheother.One studies ociety nitscapacity as state ; the other tudiesthe identicalsocietyconsidered n its capacity as economy. Societymight lso be studied as culture, and perhaps n other apacities. Thetruth eemsto be that menoccupythemselveswithnumerous ctivitiesorkinds ofbehavior, n each of whichtheactorspursuesomething hatappears to themworthwhile or necessary.The peacefulcoexistence ftheactivities s reflectedn thedisinclination f thecorrespondingocialsciencesto invade each otherwithclaims ofprecedence. Political andeconomic ctivity rerelatedto each other, ndeed,but inthesensethattheyare autonomousprincipalities, either ubject to the other,bothcontributoryo society.We couldwish to be contentwiththisexplanation,fwe were atisfiedthat the use it makes of the term society did not introducea newdifficulty.ocietydoes not meantheuniversal oncourse f all mankind.Invariably fmeans only somemen,ordinarily hosewho livewithinfrontierixedby conventions nd undera commonset of laws and in-stitutions. f therewere not laws and conventions, herewould be nosocieties, rat anyrate no societies nwhichthe relationofpolitics ndeconomicswould be perceivedas a problem.And how then is one toaccount forthose legislativeand political activities,or proto-politicalactivities,which are the sourceofthe law upon whichsocietyrests? ssuchpoliticalactivity n principlenotmerely sophisticateddeviceforsecuring ife and property?We observe that the attemptto dispose ofthe problemofpolitics and economicsby makinguse of society and


4/13

RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS 5behavior as primary nlyshows us more clearlyhow difficultt is toescape treating he relationof politicsand economicsas itselfprimary,in order o explainsociety.When we think of the groundor foundationof society,we are re-minded of the classic treatments f the theme,and of the differencesthat have existedamongthe ablest men who have applied themselvesto the problem.Some, likeAristotle, ave thought hat the cultivationofproperty equipment ) is the conditionforthe support of a goodconstitution.Others, ike Locke, have taught that a good constitutionis one that supports soundsystem fproperty.And manymen, beforeAristotle nd afterAbrahamLincoln,have knownthat the very ques-tion ofwhatmaybe held as propertys decidedby the law whichgivesits character o civil society-the very aw which, ome say, is framedby hands that hold or reachout towardpropertyn every form.Againwe are led to the problemofthe relationbetweenthe politicaland theeconomicas a questionofprimacyor order.

IILet usmakea new beginning,estating he problem nd itsconditions.We should like to know, as exactly as we can, what relationexistsbe-

tweenpolitical cienceand economics. n order oproceed,wemust havean idea ofwhatis meant by a relationbetween ciences. n one respect,sciences an scarcelybe said to be capable of havinga relationwitheachother xcept n the trivial ensethat,as bodies ofknowledge, heymaybe lodgedin the same mind, or in different inds. But sciencesare notsimplyknowledge,forthereis no such thing.Knowledge must be ofsomething,nd a sciencemusthave an object,which s thethingknownor studied.Now it occasionallyhappensthat one object is contributoryor auxiliary o another n a simpleand manifestway; as, forexample,systems fwasteand sewagedisposalare contributoryo comprehensivearrangementsor afeguarding ublichealth. n that case, thescienceofsanitary ngineering ould be contributoryo the arger cienceofpublichealth. It is generally rue that sciences are related to each otherastheirrespective bjects are related,the sciencesbeing,so to speak, therarefied orms ftheirobjects. If, then,we wishto investigate he rela-tion of political science and economics,we ought to beginwith theirrespective bjects-what each one is about-and if possibledeterminethe relationof thoseobjects.Political science s the science of government,r the sciencethat hasgovernments its object. As the object of politicalscience,governmentis not the simplesubstantivewhichmeans thegovernment; ather t isthetransitive erbalnounwhichhas governing s a near equivalent.


5/13

6 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWGovernmentmust be by people and ofpeople; somegovernand manyare governed.The instrument, ywhich hosewho are icensed ogoverndo their ffice,s law. The positive aw, expressed, larified,nd executedby officers f governments the ligamentbetweenauthority nd citi-zenry,bindingthemtogether. uch law is in factomnicompetent,ndreachesor can reach, s history mply demonstrates,o every maginablehumanact-with what rightorwhat successwe need not stop here toinquire. t is not to thepurpose to enumerate hemany humanacts ofwhichreckless r humaneregimes akeno cognizance;everyact ofnon-intervention y the law is, as the words themselves ay, an act of thelaw-a tacit or explicitact of abnegation. Thus it is by an act of thelaw, by which we mean an act of the lawmakers, hat law is forbiddento interfere ith worship nd otherthings n thiscountry. n brief, hedistinction etweenpublic and private matters s itself public matter,expressed n law by themakersofthe law.' It is clearthat the forceofthis observation s in no way diminishedby the fact that, under thebest circumstances, he governed consentto the acts of government,andmay themselves e said to hold ntheirhandsthe ultimate uthoritythatgives ts sanctionto the law. On these grounds t may be said thatpolitical sciencehas as its object government,meaningby that the rela-tionofgovernors nd citizens, xpressed n law, and comprehending,nprinciple f not in practice, ll the deeds of all themen.Whenwe attemptnext to understandwhat theobject of economics s,we mustbegin by ignoring he factthat there s no such thingas eco-nomics in general,but rather socialist economics,free enterprise co-nomics, he economicsof slave systems, nd so on. We may ignore hesedistinctions ere for he reason that, n one important espect, he vari-ouskindsof conomics verlap, incethey ll havetheir riginnthe samecircumstance, amely,human need. A certainexchange or transfer fmattermust take place betweenmenand theirnatural urroundings,ndit must be effected ythe use of objects which xceedthe hands n hard-ness and othermerelymaterial qualities. In one sense there s no morefundamental act about men: first fall, theirnature demands matter,and thenatureof whatsurrounds hemalso compelsthemto collectandutilizematter n order o stay alive.It is a commonplace hat a gap exists betweenmatter as such andproperty.Matter is not automaticallymade property itherby occupa-tion or possessionor prescription; or property s an extension of itsowner, somethingphysicallyexternal whichis assimilated to him al-though t is notinseparablefromhis body. His appropriation o himself

1 The general truthofthis proposition is the ground forour ignoring here the otherwiseimportant differences mong regimes.


6/13

RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS 7of what is externalmust therefore e recognizedby others,or he willbe partedfrom t by themat theirconvenience.Therefore he trans-formation fmatter nto propertydepends upon an act of conventionor agreement y which ach recognizes, nd abstainsfrom,heextendedas well as the natural personof every other. We appear compelledtoinfer hat the object of economics,namely,man's use of indispensablematter or hesatisfyingfhisneeds, s prior nprinciple o civil ife ndis indeed the root of law and civilization.This is what is impliedbysomeof thosewho assertthatthepurposeofgovernments toguaranteeproperty.n fact, however, he meaningofthisreasoning s quite dif-ferent.Although t appears to say that man's requirement f mattergenerates aw, in fact it says that the transformationf matter ntoproperty equires aw,orhas law as its condition; nd moreprecisely,thas not law simply s its condition, ut law of a certaincontent nd in-tention.For law thatmade each man the precariousbeneficiaryfthesovereign t themerepleasureof the sovereign, s a child or servant sthe beneficiaryf the head of the household,would be undoubted aw,but it wouldnot be law that culminated n property.We may noticenow more exactlywhy there s not such a thingaseconomics imply,but rather as many varietiesof economicsas thereare legal systems.The reasonis that,what objects a man may hold ashisproperty,ayingof themthathe needs themto live,is altogetherpublic or legal matter.The demand of self-preservationoes not leadnaturally o anyparticular nstitution f ownership, s a comparison fmedievalnatural law doctrinewith capitalismamplydemonstrates.tleads to a systemofownership nlythrough ertain cts of government.We knowpositively hat the sense ofthe community,xpressed n law,may permit heowning fa man or forbid heowning fthe soil,permitthe owningofenginesofwar or forbid he owningof a brocade cloak.Property, angibleas well as intangible, s the creatureof the law, issubordinate o the law. What it is and whomayhave of t and whathemay do with t is settledby acts of government.But this doesnot quite conclusively stablish heproposition hat theobject of economics s subordinate o theobject of politicalscience.Forit has been known, ince Plato's time at the least, that the ruleswithrespectto property hat come into force t the foundation fthe com-munity, r thereafter, ave much to do withthe subsequentdevelop-ment ofthe community s a politicalsociety.The truthof this followsfrom he meaningof property:property s an artificial laborationofthe man, the collection f objectswhich,whenadded to the man,formas a sum the civil person,a subject or citizenof a certainkind. Hemay be a formidable itizen fhis person s greatlyextendedwithob-


7/13

8 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWjets, a negligible itizen fhisperson s destitute fevery ncrementndhe confronts is governorsn his congenitalnakedness, o to speak, orin his minimum cope, withoutaddition.

That a man's powersmay be expanded n otherways thanby the in-creaseof his size is obvious.But it must be said that themanwhollyunexpanded neverywaylacksthe groundfor hatself-regard hichdis-tinguishes hecitizenfrom he meresubject. To createa civilsocietyofself-regarding en, which s to say men who confront overnmentwitha strong onsciousness f theirrights, he statesman should endowthepeople with those rightsof self-enlargement hich are the groundoflarger rights.Liberal constitutions eem, accordingto the nature ofthings, o rest easily upon a base of economic freedombecause of theease withwhichpolitical rightsarise out of access to property.Con-versely, uthoritarian onstitutionsmust circumscribehe acquisitive-ness of subjects, or the subjects will growbeyond thepower of the lawsto hem them n. Regimesseem thus to derive theircharacters rom heeconomicfoundations hat support them.There appears to be a strongreason for ffirminghesubordination frule to property: ule s for hegood ofthegoverned, nd the enlargement fpropertys equivalenttotheenlargement f theman-the groundofhisdevelopment s a humanbeingand as a citizen.We seem to have discovered that the economic arrangements remeans contributory o political ends in a way so fundamental hat itwouldbe misleading o describe hem s merely ontributory;hemeansand the end seem in fact to lose theirorder and to disappear in eachother.We have reached thepoint at which t is necessary o begin onceagain, forwithouta deeperprinciple han any to whichwe have thusfarhad recourse,we seemunable to break out ofthe endlessalternationof the political and economic at what appear to be the foundations,each incontrovertiblyetermininghe other nd dependent n the other.

IIIThe clue to the solutionof ourproblem s indicatedby thehistory fthe two sciences of political philosophy and economics. For twentycenturies herewas but one social science,namely,politicalphilosophy,and it had as its purpose to understand he nature ofthosewho are toruleand ofthose who are to be ruled,and the natureor constitution fpolitical society in the light of that understanding.The thinkersofclassical antiquity,whoimpelledpoliticalphilosophy n the directionnwhich t persisted or womillenia,understood he relationof rulers ndruledto be a natural relation n the literal sense that it arose directlyout of observable and irreducible nequalities of human beings-in-


8/13

RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS 9equalities nstrength,obeginwith, nd other nequalitieswhichbecameimportant n time. As Aristotle ndicates n Book I ofthe Politics,pre-political societyreflects he brute natural inequalities among humanbeings,while political society does or may reflectother inequalities.Under thebest circumstances, he conventional r politicalorderwouldreflect r incorporateor do justice to appropriate natural differencesamonghumanbeings-includingsuch differencess those betweenmenand women, parents and children, nd the aged and youthful, s wellas betweenthe exceptionally ompetent nd those ofmeaner capacity.Political society s necessarily n articulation funequals,and thosecon-cernedin it will be well off f their constructedor constitutional n-equality harmonizes n the rightway with the natural. The sovereignquestion s how that harmonymay be achieved or approximated.It is abundantlyclear that Plato andAristotle,who believed that theorder fhuman nequality s natural,did not believe that naturewas anenginefortranslating he appropriatenatural order nto the conven-tionalorderof humansocieties. n some respects, ndeed, their eachingpoints to the urgent need of de-emphasizing he natural orderof in-equality in order to render political societypossible or tolerable: therule of thenaturally trongest, he physically blest,would or could bea rule of brutalbarbarism. n other respectstheirdoctrine mplies n-deedthefriendlinessfnatureto civilsociety:naturefurnishes he greatquarryofmatter out of which menmay and can equip themselvesfora social existence, nd it furnishes hem, funequally,with thatunder-standingofthe meaningof nequalitywhich men can translate ntothedescription f an excellentpolitical association. Only so far does theprovidence f nature extend.Nature providesthe materialsof politicallife, nd it impliestheform r outlineof a properpolitical ife,but it isnot itself he efficientause of the mostdesirable ofpolitical organiza-tions,nordoes it producea general,much ess an irresistiblenclinationtowardthem. On thecontrary, he conventional r politicalorder esistswith a deep intransigencell efforts t converting t into the simplyornaturallybest order.It is true that the political philosophyof classical Greece gives theimpression f being dominatedby the idea that nature s unqualifiedlyor even providentially ood forman, the directsourceof the model ofhuman perfection, rivate and political. From this famous ostensiveteleology,t is easy to proceedto the conclusion hat the ancientswerefantasticoptimists,nourishing blindfaith n a naturewhich appearsplainlyto us to be itselfblind to man and his happiness. Yet it is quiteclear, for example frolnBook I of Aristotle's Politics, that classicalphilosophyunderstoodthat nature is as much identifiedwith the be-


9/13

10 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWginning s with the end, or that nature shows tself n thebarbaric pre-political tateas it does in the artificial ondition f civil ife.The bridgethatconnects hepre-politicalwiththe political condition s theactivityofsatisfying he needs that accompany man in all his states, i.e., theeconomic ctivity.An emphaticallynatural acquisitiveactivity s hunt-ing, whichAristotle ubsumes under war and connectswith the seizingof men to make of them a property.The civil activity that has anaffinity with hunting s exchange, which necessarilyoccasions com-merce. The growth of civil peace, or civilization,or political life, sthe transformationf the predation of war into the salutarypredationofpeace, the mercenary uest for ncrease and gain.Aristotle aw at the same time that acquisitivenesswas natural,that twas deplorable, nd that t was indispensable o civil peace. Whatis most conspicuous n his discussion s that he conceived t to be de-plorable. Aristotledeplored retail trade, usury, and acquisitivenessin the name of virtue, quality of man which s perpetually hreatenedby his nature as that shows itself n his necessitousness.And yet hisvirtueand all his manifestpossibilities re unintelligible xcept in thelight fhis nature.The public or politicalfunction fpoliticalphilosophyis to turn attention oward the meaning of nature as end and to divertattentionfromnature as the beginning;or to turn attention towardnatureas provident nd friendly o human excellence, nd away fromnature as polemic and divisive, which t is. The classics seem to havebelieved thatexcessive mphasisupon man's needinesswouldblindhimto the reason for not becoming a self-regardingtom. But the self-regardingman is, as such, the opposite of the citizen,whose peculiarvirtue s patriotism r regardfor ountry nd countrymenirst nd fore-most-say institutionalized ltruism.Withoutthat quality,men cannottake theirproperplace among the ruled and assume theirproperposturewithrespectto the rulers.It is on this basis that the classical writers ould simplycomprehendthe economic activity within or under the political, and discussionofthe economic activitieswithin he discussionof political life more gen-erally. Successfulpolitical life depends upon a proper public emphasisupon those irenic elementsof nature which are friendly o virtueandhenceto political ife, nd the suppression r warding ff fthosepolemicelementswhich re neutralor hostiletoward the perfectionfcivil com-munity.The instrument f that prudent mphasis s law, orconvention,and its fruit s political society, which is an artifact, he product ofprovidentmen who are the great benefactors f theirkind. They maybe said to rise above nature through he breadth of theirunderstandingofnature:perceiving hat nature s in some ways friendlynd in someways ndifferento the perfection fpolitical ociety, heclassical writers


10/13

RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS 11declinedto deduce political life fromthe simple laws of nature. Lawmust proceed fromwell-disposed ntelligence, r fromthe wisdom ofsuperiormen. Law is a phenomenon f the relationbetweengoverningmen and governedmen, the political relation, he improvedectype ofprimary nequality.Political philosophy s the comprehensive ocial,notto say human, cience,because it comprehends ll the aspectsofnature,the friendly, he indifferent,nd even the hostile,under aw that ema-nates fromhuman discretion. t is based upon a narrow-eyed crutinyofnatureby discreetmen who understood he precariousnesswithwhichpolitical ife s balanced upon its naturalbase.It is a commonplace hat the modern authors who found fault withclassical doctrinesdid so because they conceived them to be foundedupon a hopelessly anguine estimate of the moral possibilities nherentin thenatural order.Each thinkerhad his own way of articulating hisbelief, ut we shall take up the view of Locke only,forLocke's formula-tionof the question was the one that broughtproperty nd economicsmost visibly nto the foreground, nd thus displayed most clearly therelationof political science and economics that is characteristic f thelast fewcenturies.

IVLocke's political teaching s famous for the great emphasis that itplaces on the historicalprogress f men out of the state of nature ntocivilsociety.Mankind are but in an ill conditionwhile they remain n[thestate ofnature], and] are quickly driven nto society. 2 t is note-worthy, owever, hat the state of nature, which men find ntolerable,is said by Locke to be pervaded by the law of nature, and the law ofnature stands as an eternal rule to all men, a law the obligationsofwhich cease not in society but only n many cases are drawncloser. 3The law ofnature s indeed the aw of the state of nature,but, as eternaland unchanging, ike nature tself, t does not lose its force n thestateofcivil society; rather he opposite. The constant authority f the lawofnaturethus tends to diminishvery much the differencen principlebetween hestate of natureand the state of civil society:both statesareutterly ominatedby that fundamental, acred, and unalterable aw ofself-preservationorwhich [men] ntered nto society. 4Men obeythatlaw because it is an expression of, or inference rom that first and

strongest esire God planted in men, and wroughtnto thevery princi-ples of theirnature. 5Obedience to the aw ofnature s indistinguishable2 Second Treatise, IX, 127.3 Ibid., XI, 135.4 Ibid., XIII, 149.6 First Treatise, IX, 88.


11/13

12 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWfrom pursuing hatnatural nclinationmanhas] to preserve isbeing,and, so doing,to avail himself f themeans of comfortableivingby arightwhich s discernedby natural reason. But unfortunatelyorthepeace of mankind, bedienceto the law ofdesireforpreservations noteo ipso obedienceto a morallaw;7 on the contrary, moral law, i.e., alaw to whichcertainpunishments annexed,mustbe enacted in orderto permit he law ofdesireforpreservationo becomea law ofpreserva-tion proper.8 he transition rom he state ofnatureto thestateof civilsociety s brought bout in orderto render heobligations f thelaw ofnatureoperativeforpeace and comfort yhaving knownpenaltiesan-nexedto themto enforce heirobservation. 9More concretely,what ispurposedby entering ociety s the preservation f property-life, ib-erty, nd estate.But property .. is for he benefitnd sole advantageofthe proprietor . . and it is to guaranteeeveryman in the right oseekhisparticular oodinthe ightof thatmaximthatthe aw ofnatureis made contributoryo the salus populiby thelaws of civilsociety.10The immutable aw ofpreservations the sole groundof man's rightto appropriate rom aturewhat heneedsto live comfortably.Men mayappropriatedirectly romnatureduring hosefirst ges when want ofpeople and moneygave menno temptation o enlargetheirpossessionsof and, 11 ut thereafterheyare compelled o obtaintheirgoodsfromother owners.Government xists in orderto insurethat no man willhave to give up his goods exceptby his own consent, .e., through aleor exchange,or lawfultaxation.Government xiststo presideovertheorderly ccupation and transfer f property, nd thus to bring to itshighest fficacy hesacredlaw ofnature, hefundamentalaw of preser-vation.It existsforno otherpurpose.In his remarkablepapers on moneyand the rate of interest,Lockeillustrates he orderlyworking f naturein civil society.The questionsto whichhe addresseshimself re theadvisabilityofattempting o con-trol the interest ate by positivelegislation, nd ofattempting o haltan outflowof bullionby devaluing the coin-i.e., raisingthe nominalvalue ofa given weightof silver.Locke concludesthatit is not only n-advisable but impossibleto produce the desiredeffects y the meansproposed,because thereare such things s natural value (we wouldsay price)and naturalinterest which redetermined ywhathe him-self alls laws ofvalue. His applicationof thoselaws ofvalue-essen-tiallythelaw ofsupplyand demand--showsthemto be similar n their

6 Ibid., 86.7 Essay ConcerningHuman Understanding, , iii, 13.8 Ibid., II, xxviii, 6.9 Second Treatise, XI, 135.10First Treatise, IX, 92.11 econd Treatise, VIII, 108.


12/13

RELATION OF POLITICAL SCIENCE AND ECONOMICS 13operation to that settled law of nature, the law of gravitation.12e-ginningwith the natural motive-literally the source of motion-in theamor habendi, nd adding to it the right to make as much of [his]money s it is worth, 13he operation f the natural mechanism o whichpositive egislationmust defermay then be deduced.The sciencewhich s elaboratedto deduce that operation s economics.Economics arose out of political philosophy as an autonomous socialscience, not in order to describe an aspect of society,but with theintention f clarifyinghe very groundof society s that ground s con-ceived by the moderndoctrine f natural aw, of whichLocke's teachingis representative. egislation, or the act of government,which is theobject of political science, s decisively n the service of property,whichis the object of economics. The autonomy of economics s in effect n-distinguishable rom he primacy feconomics.According o the politicalsciencewhich ulminatesnthisunderstanding,fthe studiers f the lawof nature succeed in their construction f the principleof nature,thennature can be viewed as providing he adequate efficient ause of civilsociety and therewith he effective uide forpositive egislation. t ap-pears that there s an optimismwith respect to the efficientause inmodernnatural law theorywhich s at least as great as the optimismabout the finalcause attributed o the classical political teaching.Theoptimism f Lockean doctrine s based upon the view that naturecon-tains no end which s of higher tandingthan, or which s radicallydif-ferentn quality from, he beginning.He wrote, The end of a common-wealthconstituted an be supposedno other hanwhatmen n thecon-stitution f, nd enteringnto t proposed; and that could be nothing utprotection rom uch injuries fromother men, which they desiring oavoid, nothing ut force ould preventor remedy.... ))14The politicalbenefits hat have flowed rom he acceptanceofmodernnatural aw principles ave been so enormous hat, at a time when theyare threatened,we must reexaminetheir foundations n orderto per-petuate them by strengthening hose foundationswhereverpossible.The equating of the end with the beginning r with the primitives apoint at which there is a fault in the foundation,which mightbedivinedfrom wide range of human experiences.A ready llustrationsthecommunityfhusband and wife.Men and women redrawn owardseach other n theiryouth by a strongmotive which may be called theefficientause orbeginning f theirunion. Human experiencewouldnotbear out the proposition hat their communityhas no other end thanthat which might have been most manifest t the beginning.The be-

12 ElementsofNatural Philosophy, ch. I.13 Some Considerations of theLowering of Interest,11th paragraph.14 A Third Letter or Toleration,ch. II.


13/13

14 THE AMERICAN POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWginning,by effecting he union, makes possible through hat union aprogress rmaturingwhichraises their community o a differentevelfrom hat on which t began, and gives t otherreasonsforgrowing hanthosewhichbrought t into being. Connubial societycan be but im-perfectlynderstoodn thesole lightofthe effectiveause or motiveofits coming nto being. The attemptto understandpolitical society pri-marilyby that same lightdoesnot succeed better.

VWhenwe inquire ntotherelationofpoliticalscienceand economics,we are led back to the originofeconomics n a certainact ofpolitical

philosophy.By that act, politicalphilosophyrevised ts understandingof ts object and its content.So doing, t revisedthe view that it tookofitself, orsciencesare constituted y theircontent, nd theydefinethemselvesndefiningheir ontent.Politicalphilosophy hoseat a cer-tain pointto accountforpolitical ociety s a meremutation f he statusof pre-politicalman. The self-limitationf political philosophyto thetask of elaborating he primevalhumanpurposefound xpressionn themodern doctrineof natural law. In confiningtselfto making explicitwhat is implicit nman's primitive tate, political philosophy aused it-selfto be supplantedprimarily y economics,the disciplinethat sys-tematically nlarges upon the self-preserving otive of pre-civilman.Political science inherited s its contentthe ministerial uestions per-tainingto the supportofthe essentially conomic order of society. nthisway, and in the indicated order of rank,economics and politicalscience arose out ofthe self-limitationfpolitical philosophy.The autonomyof economicsrestsupon an act ofabdication by politi-cal philosophy. hereis a questionwhether oliticalphilosophy id not,in that act of abdication,attemptto alienate what is unalienable. Forwhat political philosophy n the seventeenth enturyproposedwas tocreate a horizonforcivil man by reconstructinghe horizonof pre-civilman. But pre-civilman could have only the most imperfect rasp ofthe possibilities fpoliticalsociety;and he could have no grasp of theplace occupied by politicalphilosophy n political society. Yet our ownpoliticalsituation eaches us, ifreflection ouldnot,theneedto inquirephilosophically oncerning conomicand political things.Our circum-stancesstrongly uggest he nsufficiencyfthehorizonofpre-civilmanby compellingus to recur to political philosophy. When we wish tounderstand he relationofpoliticalscience and economics,we are com-pelledto undertake n act,howeverhumble, fpoliticalphilosophy.Ourinquiry nto the autonomy of economics eads us to discover the un-alienable hegemony fpoliticalphilosophy.

Cropsey - Political Science and Economics

Documents

Transcript of Cropsey - Political Science and Economics