Magnífica nota de Amartya Sen (Nobel),The economist manifesto,(en NewStatesman) en donde argumenta que se ha interpretado incorrectamente a A. Smith en cuanto a su posición sobre el papel del mercado.... vale la pena leerlo.... aquí les comparto un par de párrafos
.
The spirited attempt to see Smith as an advocate of pure capitalism, with complete reliance on the market mechanism guided by pure profit motive, is altogether misconceived. Smith never used the term "capitalism" (I have certainly not found an instance). More importantly, he was not aiming to be the great champion of the profit-based market mechanism, nor was he arguing against the importance of economic institutions other than the markets.
Smith was convinced of the necessity of a well-functioning market economy, but not of its sufficiency. He argued powerfully against many false diagnoses of the terrible "commissions" of the market economy, and yet nowhere did he deny that the market economy yields important "omissions". He rejected market-excluding interventions, but not market-including interventions aimed at doing those important things that the market may leave undone.
Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of "two distinct objects": "first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services". He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted.
.
The spirited attempt to see Smith as an advocate of pure capitalism, with complete reliance on the market mechanism guided by pure profit motive, is altogether misconceived. Smith never used the term "capitalism" (I have certainly not found an instance). More importantly, he was not aiming to be the great champion of the profit-based market mechanism, nor was he arguing against the importance of economic institutions other than the markets.
Smith was convinced of the necessity of a well-functioning market economy, but not of its sufficiency. He argued powerfully against many false diagnoses of the terrible "commissions" of the market economy, and yet nowhere did he deny that the market economy yields important "omissions". He rejected market-excluding interventions, but not market-including interventions aimed at doing those important things that the market may leave undone.
Smith saw the task of political economy as the pursuit of "two distinct objects": "first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and second, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services". He defended such public services as free education and poverty relief, while demanding greater freedom for the indigent who receives support than the rather punitive Poor Laws of his day permitted.
2 comentarios:
Tendrìa que leer con màs detalle a Smith, pero lo que puedo percibir es que Sen comparte puntos con èl. En primera instancia, sobre la importancia de la intervenciòn precisa y controlada del Estado para una economìa sana; y en segundo lugar, sobre el papel del Estado a travès de la economìa para el mejoramiento de la calidad de vida en sus distintos rubros (educaciòn, vivienda, disminuciòn de la proreza...).
Lo anterior refleja que aveces lo enseñado, leìdo o escuchado sobre Smith no es cierto. No es tan "laissez faire" como lo han pintado...
Marianna Lara
Muy bueno, creo que ya es hora de que yo lea el libro y vea por mi mismo a qué se refería Smith. El último párrafo, sobre la importancia de un Estado rico que pueda aliviar la pobreza, me impresionó mucho y está muy bueno
Publicar un comentario