The traditional École in economy gathers economist S of the 18th century and 19th century. Its most important members are, in Great Britain, Adam Smith (1723 - 1790), David Ricardo (1772 - 1823), Thomas Malthus (1766 - 1834), John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873), and in France, Jean-Baptiste Say (1767 - 1832) and Frederic Bastiat (1801 - 1850). It was employed for the first time by Marx in the capital .

It is impossible to fix at this school of thought of precise contours, that it is in terms of dates, authors or theses. The posterior authors gave different definitions of them, including or excluding certain authors and privileging certain theses, according to whether they wished to present their own positions as in rupture with the “traditional” positions supposed or on the contrary coherent with them.

For example, Marx defines the traditional school by adhesion in the concept of the Value-work. It thus excludes Say from it that it criticizes severely. While being claimed of Smith and especially of Ricardo, Karl Marx is regarded by certain historians of the economic thinking as the last of the traditional ones.

Carl Menger characterizes to him also the traditional school by the concept of value-work, but is to separate some and propose a subjective theory of the value which is precisely that of traditional French that it seems to be unaware of.

Keynes defines the traditional school by adhesion in the “Loi of the outlets” allotted to Say, which it rewrites with its way for the occasion in order to challenge it.

Schumpeter, by defining it as the period 1790-1870, excludes from it Turgot and Smith but includes Marx there.

Actually, one cannot characterize the traditional school by a coherent whole of theses shared by all the authors of this period. Rather than of a school of thought strictly speaking, it rather acts a period of intense economic reflection which gave place to a diversity of positions, and with controversies on some.

The step of the classical economists

The traditional economic thinking develops at the same time as are born the industrial society and the modern Capitalisme. These thinkers are mainly philosophers (Condillac, Smith) or experts (Cantillon, Say, Turgot, Ricardo). They seek before very explaining the Phénomène S of growth, development and Répartition of the richnesses between different the Social classes.

The classical economists see all the economic phenomena like interdependent and want to propose a general theory integrating all the economic phenomena. Following the Physiocrats, they believe in the existence of valid laws at all the times and in all the areas of the world and seek to identify them.

Their analysis is dynamic. They are interested in the processes of Production, exchange, formation of the Prix, formation of the Revenu S, and not in hypothetical states of balance. They use for that the Observation and the Raisonnement Logique, and only resort very exceptionally to the Mathématiques.

This design of the economic discipline is common to all the traditional ones and distinguishes them from the majority of the schools of thought appeared starting from the end of the XIXe century, in particular of neo-classic which constitute the dominant tendency today.

Two designs of the value

The traditional first economist S seek to give an objective base to the Valeur of the things , which they initially place in the Ground (Cantillon, Quesnay and the Physiocrates), then in the work (Smith, Ricardo and later Marx). For the latter, the Valeur of the Marchandise S must be the Exchange value (faculty of goods to being exchanged against another goods), whose measurement will be the Labor costs (the more important the labor costs will be, the more the exchange value will increase).

After Condillac and Turgot, traditional French separates on this point from traditional English by adopting a subjective design from the value, which rests on the Utilité hoped goods (“the degree of regard that the man attaches to the various objects of his desires” (Turgot)). They thus give up the concept of “natural Prix” or “Fair price” and announce the position of the economists marginalists of the end of the 19th century.

The currency

For the Traditional ones, the Monnaie is basically an instrument of exchange. Its other functions of expression of the Value and store of value are particular aspects of its primary function. In fine the products are always exchanged against products (definition of Ricardo).

The quantity of currency in circulation does not have importance: the prices are adjusted with the quantity of currency available. To create currency does not increase the mass of the real richnesses available. In this direction, the currency is only a `veil'.

It is nevertheless inaccurate to say that the traditional ones consider that the currency is neutral. The economy can function with an unspecified quantity of currency, but the variations of this quantity, or those of the value of the currency, are not neutral. Indeed, the currency lately created is spread in the company starting from precise points and in a progressive way, which involves effects differentiated on the Prix and thus on the behaviors from the Economic agents. It is what is called the effect Cantillon.

The central role of the offer

The problems of traditional are mainly that of the formation of the richnesses. Their analysis is thus centered the production and offers. Moreover, since their time is still dominated by the shortage, they postulate implicitly that very product meets a need. Jean Baptiste Say poses in theory that very produced finished creates outlets for other products. In other terms, each time a producer increases his activity it creates at the same time new outlets for his suppliers, it creates new wages for its employees, it creates an addition of activity for its distributers.

This " law of Say" does not want however not to say that very product finds necessarily a request, or like interpreted it Keynes that " the offer creates its clean demande". There can be at every moment an overproduction of such or such good, but there cannot be general and durable crises of overproduction. If a product does not find taking, its producers will cease producing it and will direct themselves towards other productions

There can be only sectoral and temporary cloggings, resulting from a bad forecast of the market by the contractors. In this vision of the economy, the crises cannot be endogenous with the economic system, but are the exogenic fruits of shocks like the wars or the drynesses.

This opinion stated by Say was supported by Ricardo and Mill, but was disputed by Malthus and Sismondi.

The place of the saving

An important objective of the classical economists is to explain the mechanisms of the Progrès. This one can result only from progress in the Division of the labor and the use of increasingly sophisticated Outils. They thus confer a crucial role on the Investissement (increase in the stock of Capital), which requires the saving. For Adam Smith, “the industry of the company cannot increase that as much as its capital increases and this capital cannot increase which proportion has of what can be saved”.

In other words, saving, included/understood at the same time as saving of the households and as the saving of the companies, is a precondition necessary to the investment.

The role of the State

The classical economists are generally Libéraux. According to them, the actions and Interaction S economic S lead to the formation of a spontaneous Ordre, that Smith illustrates by the Métaphore of the “invisible Main”, and that the intervention of the State in the operation of the economy must be minimal if not null. This spontaneous order is characterized by the Division of the labor, or specialization. Each individual, instead of entirely manufacturing an object, specializes in a particular task of his manufacture, which allows an increase in the Production.

See too

References and notes