The economic table f kene reveals the essence. Economic theory of Quesnay

Francois Quesnay, the head of the Physiocrats school, tried to present a picture of the circulation of goods and money on the scale of the national economy. He proceeded from the division of society into three classes: landowners, farmers and artisans - in accordance with their participation in the reproductive process. For the first time in history, Quesnay proposed a general scheme, abstracting from some real moments and relationships. In his scheme, income is completely spent, there is no accumulation, and exchange within classes and foreign trade relations are not taken into account.

The main thing in Quesnay’s table is not arithmetic calculations illustrating the movement of product and cash flows, but a graphical analysis of the overall picture of reproduction, in which individual acts production and exchange are presented in the form of a zigzag pattern (“zigzags” are the flows of goods and money from one class to another).

The Quesnay table includes products, “advances” (costs) on the main and working capital, cash. The diagram demonstrates where income comes from, where the total and net product is created, how it is distributed, how costs are reimbursed (for equipment, rent, land improvement, seeds, etc.).

The starting point of “reproductive analysis” is the annual harvest, its redistribution in kind and money between producers (farmers), landowners and artisans (the latter only change the form of the product). A pure product, as follows from the physiocratic doctrine, is formed only in agriculture.

Quesnay's table can be commented on as follows. Landowners have money in the form of 2 billion livres. This is the rent paid by farmers for the use of land. The exchange takes place between landowners (2 billion livres), farmers (food worth 2 billion livres and raw materials worth 1 billion livres) and artisans (industrial products worth 2 billion livres). Landowners purchase food and industrial products for 2 billion livres, artisans purchase food for 1 billion livres and raw materials for 1 billion livres. Farmers purchase industrial products worth 1 billion livres and earn money in the amount of 2 billion livres by selling food to artisans and landowners. They then pay the landowners in the form of rent 2 billion livres, and it all starts again. These 2 billion livres are the net product that is generated in agriculture and then goes to support landowners, the church, the army and the state.

The merit of F. Quesnay is that he created the first macroeconomic picture of the relationship between the three main classes (industries). In the "Economic Table" he presented a diagram of the movement of a product in the form of an annual turnover on the scale of the entire society. Quesnay's idea was later developed in reproduction schemes, principles of calculating the social product, and in models of the national economic balance.

Literature

Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. 4th ed. – M.: Delo Ltd, 1994. – Chapter 1.

Drozdov V.V. Francois Quesnay. – M.: Economics, 1988.

Zhid Sh., Rist Sh. History of economic doctrines. – M.: Economics, 1995. – Chapter 1.

Quesnay F. Selected economic works. – M.: 1960.

Mayburd E. M. Introduction to history economic thought. From prophets to

Professors. – M.: Delo, Vita-Press, 1996. – Ch. 12.

Negishi T. History of economic theory: Textbook. – M.: JSC “Aspect Press”, 1995. – Ch. 2.

Francois Quesnay (1694-1774)- the head of the school of physiocrats - tried to imagine the type of circulation of goods and money on the scale of the national economy. He proceeded from the division of society into three classes:

1) landowners;

2) farmers;

3) artisans.

For the first time in history, Quesnay proposed a general scheme, distracting from some real moments and relationships. In his scheme, income is completely spent, there is no accumulation, and exchange within classes and foreign trade relations are not taken into account.

The main thing in the Quesnay table- not arithmetic calculations depicting the movement of product and cash flows, but a graphical analysis of the overall picture of reproduction, in which individual acts of production and exchange are presented in the form of a zigzag pattern (“zigzags” - flows of goods and money from one class to another). In the Quesnay table products, “advances” (costs) for fixed and working capital, and cash appear. The diagram shows where income comes from, where the total and net product is created, how it is distributed, how costs are reimbursed (for equipment, rent, land improvement, seeds, etc.).

The final point of “reproductive analysis” is the annual harvest, its redistribution in kind and money between producers (farmers), landowners and artisans. A pure product is formed only in agriculture.

Landowners have money in the amount of 2 billion livres. This is the rent paid by farmers for the use of land. Exchange occurs between landowners, farmers and artisans. Landowners purchase food and industrial goods for 2 billion livres, artisans purchase food for 1 billion and raw materials for 1 billion livres. Farmers purchase industrial products worth 1 billion and earn 2 billion livres by selling their food to artisans and landowners. They buy the products they produce from each other for the same amount. Then they pay the landowners 2 billion livres in rent, and everything starts again.

But, considering the economic table as the first attempt at macroeconomic research, it can be noted flaws:

1) a simple illustration of the interdependence of industries;

2) designation of the so-called unproductive sector, which has fixed capital;

3) recognition economic activity source on earth net income, without clarifying the mechanism for transforming land into a source of value.

Merit of F. Quesnay is that he created the first macroeconomic picture of the relationship between the three main classes (industries), presented a pattern of product movement in the form of annual turnover on the scale of the entire society.

Francois Quesnay, the head of the Physiocrats school, tried to present a picture of the circulation of goods and money on the scale of the national economy. He proceeded from the division of society into three classes: landowners, farmers and artisans - in accordance with their participation in the reproductive process. For the first time in history, Quesnay proposed a general scheme, abstracting from some real moments and relationships. In his scheme, income is completely spent, there is no accumulation, and exchange within classes and foreign trade relations are not taken into account.

The main thing in Quesnay’s table is not arithmetic calculations illustrating the movement of product and cash flows, but a graphical analysis of the overall picture of reproduction, in which individual acts of production and exchange are presented in the form of a zigzag pattern (“zigzags” - flows of goods and money from one class to another).

The Quesnay table includes products, “advances” (costs) for fixed and working capital, and cash. The diagram demonstrates where income comes from, where the total and net product is created, how it is distributed, how costs are reimbursed (for equipment, rent, land improvement, seeds, etc.).

The starting point of “reproductive analysis” is the annual harvest, its redistribution in kind and money between producers (farmers), landowners and artisans (the latter only change the form of the product). A pure product, as follows from the physiocratic doctrine, is formed only in agriculture.

Quesnay's table can be commented on as follows. Landowners have money in the form of 2 billion livres. This is the rent paid by farmers for the use of land. The exchange takes place between landowners (2 billion livres), farmers (food worth 2 billion livres and raw materials worth 1 billion livres) and artisans (industrial products worth 2 billion livres). Landowners purchase food and industrial products for 2 billion livres, artisans purchase food for 1 billion livres and raw materials for 1 billion livres. Farmers purchase industrial products worth 1 billion livres and earn money in the amount of 2 billion livres by selling food to artisans and landowners. Then they pay the landowners 2 billion livres in rent and it all starts again. These 2 billion livres are the net product that is generated in agriculture and then goes to support landowners, the church, the army and the state.

The merit of F. Quesnay is that he created the first macroeconomic picture of the relationship between the three main classes (industries). In the "Economic Table" he presented a diagram of the movement of a product in the form of an annual turnover on the scale of the entire society. Quesnay's idea was later developed in reproduction schemes, principles of calculating the social product, and in models of the national economic balance.

Literature

Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect. 4th ed. – M.: Delo Ltd, 1994. – Chapter 1.

Drozdov V.V. Francois Quesnay. – M.: Economics, 1988.

Zhid Sh., Rist Sh. History of Economic Thought. – M.: Economics, 1995. – Chapter 1.

Kene F. Selected economic works. – M.: 1960.

Mayburd E. M. Introduction to the history of economic thought. From prophets to

professors. – M.: Delo, Vita-Press, 1996. – Ch. 12.

Negishi T. History of economic theory: Textbook. – M.: JSC “Aspect Press”, 1995. – Ch. 2.

MOSCOW ACADEMY OF ECONOMICS AND LAW

RYAZAN BRANCH

TEST

Course: “HISTORY OF ECONOMIC STUDIES”

Topic: “Economic Table” by Francois Quesnay.

Completed by: Art. gr. EB - 241

Lebedev N.V.

Checked by: d.e. Sc., professor

Badaliants Yu. S.

Ryazan 2003

Plan

Introduction 3

1. F. Quesnay about the pure product, productive and “sterile” labor, classes and capital 4

2. Analysis of reproduction in the “Economic Table” by F. Quesnay 11

3. The significance of Quesnay’s views for the development of economic thought 17

Conclusion 19

Literature 20

Introduction

Francois Quesnay (1694-1774) - French economist. Quesnay founded the "School" (dubbed the "Sect" by his opponents), which became the first organized movement in political economy aimed at influencing public debate with a scientific concept of society. This “School” was called the “school of physiocrats” - from the Greek words physis (nature) and kratos (power).

The foundation of the views of the physiocrats was the recognition of productivity only in agriculture. In their view, it is the only sector that produces more than is needed for that production, in contrast to commerce and industry, which produces only value equal to the cost of production. And the wealth of the state depends, therefore, on the size of the product obtained in agriculture, and the object of reforms should be to stimulate the activity of farmers.

Although the work of the physiocrats is based on a view of economics marked by the characteristics of 18th-century French society, their contribution to the formation of economic science is significant. It involves viewing the economy as a system oriented simultaneously toward social classes and sectors of activity; an identification called "natural order"; economic laws governing relationships between individuals; difference between capital and profit; the concept of reversing cost flows that ensure the reproduction of society as a whole, the stop of which leads to economic crises.

Quesnay became famous thanks to his main work, The Economic Table, published in 1758, in which the production and distribution of wealth in the “agricultural kingdom” is analyzed using a zigzag diagram. Many different versions of this scheme subsequently appeared with comments from the author or his students.

The diagram from the "Economic Table" is generally accepted as the first representation of the economic system as a whole, with cash flows, technical production limitations, and the distribution of income between social classes.

1. F. Quesnay about the pure product, productive and “sterile” labor, classes and capital

The central place in Quesnay’s teaching was occupied by the problem of the “pure product” and its production. “Net product” is the surplus over that part of production that compensated for wages. In other words, by “net product” we meant surplus product. Rent was considered the only form of pure product.

However, the physiocrats interpreted the production of a “pure product” contradictorily. On the one hand, it was presented as the result of the natural process of growth characteristic of agriculture, and therefore as a gift of nature. At the same time, the “pure product” also appears to them as the result of agricultural labor, an excess over wages.

“The net product,” wrote Quesnay, “is the wealth created annually which forms the income of the nation, and represents the product extracted from land holdings after the removal of all costs.” 1

Thus, the physiocrats believed that a pure product arises only in agriculture. And they had the very obvious on their side, because nowhere is the increase in production demonstrated as clearly as in the field of livestock and crop production.

Physiocrats argued that in industry there is only consumption; industry was declared a “sterile industry” due to the fact that it only transformed the form of a product, a given product. In industry, due to its “sterility,” no surplus product is created, and the income of the entrepreneur and the wages of the worker represent production costs.

Closely connected with the doctrine of the pure product among the physiocrats is the concept of productive and unproductive labor. For the first time in the history of economic thought, they classified only labor that creates a “pure product” as productive labor. Accordingly, according to their views, only labor engaged in agriculture is productive, while labor in other spheres of the national economy is unproductive, or “sterile.”

This criterion (participation in the creation of a pure product) was the basis for the classification of society when analyzing the process of social reproduction, given by F. Quesnay in his famous work “Economic Table”. In it, society is viewed as a single organism uniting three main classes:

the productive class, which includes everyone involved in agriculture;

a class of owners, including all whose existence is connected, directly or indirectly, with the income from the ownership of land;

sterile class, which includes all those engaged in non-agricultural (industrial) activities.

Thus, the productive class includes peasants, farmers and agricultural wage workers, that is, everyone who is employed in agriculture. The owner class is those who receive the annual net product created in agriculture. Quesnay included the king, landowners, the church and all their servants as owners. He declared all people employed in industry to be a sterile, or unproductive, class. This included wage workers, artisans, capitalists, merchants and small traders.

It should be noted that the “productivity” or “sterility” of two of the three classes is not determined by the presence or absence of products in a material sense. Both “peasants” and “sterile citizens” create goods with their labor, which Quesnay calls, respectively, “agricultural products” and “products.” The difference between these classes does not lie in the commercial or non-commercial nature of their products. In both cases, these products are intended partially or completely for sale, and this, in turn, is necessary for the purchase of products of another class. The sterile class, just like the class of owners, according to Quesnay, does not create a pure product, but unlike the latter, this class works and with its labor creates as much as it consumes.

A description of the class structure of society was necessary for Quesnay, since in his "Economic Table" the total annual product is distributed through the process of circulation among three classes. Quesnay's task was to preserve the king and the landowners as the basis of society. But he could not put the owner class in first place; this would contradict his physiocratic concept of the primacy of agriculture. Therefore, he found landowners in a special class, placed between the “productive” and “sterile” classes. It is quite obvious that the theory of Quesnay classes is erroneous. According to his scheme, workers and capitalists in both industry and agriculture were united into one class. When dividing society into classes, Quesnay ignored the main principle - the relationship of class to the means of production. However, this limitation of Quesnay's teaching is explained by historical conditions. In France at that time there was no working class as such, and capitalist contradictions were then in their infancy, since capitalism was just being formed in the womb of feudalism. The division of society into farmers, property owners and industrialists actually corresponded to the division of society that existed in the Middle Ages into peasants, nobility and townspeople.

2. Analysis of reproduction in the “Economic Table”

F. Quesnay

Relations between classes are considered by Quesnay as economic relations, since they consist either in purchase or sale of goods, or in payment of income. It is this characteristic that allows us to speak in this regard about a system of political economy, since society is here described in terms of the circulation of wealth (“trade between different classes”). Moreover: these economic relations are not considered separately from other relations between people in society; the existence of society itself depends on their existence, since they express the natural order that ensures its well-being.

First of all, Quesnay represents these relations between classes in terms of the costs incurred by their members. Thus, he analyzes what can be called the circulation of money in society; it is described by the following diagram.

Circulation of money between classes

At the beginning of the period, the landowning class has an income equal to 2 billion liras, and the barren class has an amount of 1 billion liras, which it advances for production. Landowners spend half of their income on purchasing agricultural products and the other half on purchasing sterile products. He uses 1 billion liras in advance to purchase the raw materials needed for production, and 1 billion liras just received from the landowners to purchase the means of subsistence that he will consume during the period.

The productive class uses the 1 billion liras received from landowners (for the sale of agricultural products) to buy products of the sterile class (these are not the products that landowners buy). With the amount received, the infertile class returns their advance of 1 billion liras. Finally, from the proceeds from the sale of raw materials and means of subsistence to the sterile class, the productive class can pay the sum of 2 billion liras to the owners of the land they used. At the end of the period, the owners again have an income of 2 billion liras, and the sterile class - 1 billion liras, and circulation can begin again.

Two observations can be made about this scheme. It is presented as a vicious circle, where the original state, changed by the first costs, is eventually restored. In this case, society can function indefinitely without the need to impose coherence on it; the costs incurred by the classes are sufficient to spontaneously maintain this social coherence through monetary circulation (what Quesnay calls “legal order”). On the contrary, restoration of the original state does not occur if the costs differ in magnitude from those indicated in the diagram.

However, these costs are divided into two types. The costs emanating from the productive or sterile class are associated with purchases for production, therefore they are fixed by the conditions of production and do not change if the latter remain unchanged. The costs of owners are dictated only by their own desires. However, this class is, without knowing it, responsible for closing the circle. Suppose that 2 billion liras are spent differently and the original position is not restored, either due to the negligence of the productive class in paying the income, or due to the negligence of the sterile class in repaying the advance (adjustment by changing the costs of these two classes is impossible, since they specified by production conditions). Thus, we can conclude that the owner class is especially responsible for social coherence through the impulses given to monetary circulation.

This monetary circulation during the period corresponds to the purchases of goods. It is also necessary that these goods exist, i.e. were produced for the required amount: 3 billion liras of agricultural products and 2 billion liras of industrial products.

In industry, everything is simple: the sterile class buys 1 billion liras of raw materials and 1 billion liras of means of subsistence. The former are used in the production of products, the latter are consumed by infertile citizens (and their families) who produce the products. Their production therefore requires costs equal to 2 billion liras, and the proceeds from their sale are equal to this amount. This expresses the sterility of this class: it certainly produces goods, but adds nothing to their value. This is what Quesnay notes to prove that we are actually talking about “consumption”:

“(At the end of the period), this class (the sterile) retains this amount to recoup its advance which was paid earlier to the productive class for the purchase of raw materials used in the production of goods. This advance does not produce anything: it was spent, then it was returned and it remains in stock all the time, year after year.

The raw materials and labor for the production of products determine the sales of the sterile class at 2 billion, of which 1 billion is spent on the subsistence of the members of this class; here only consumption is visible, or the absence of production and the moment of reproduction, since this class exists only through the subsequent payment of remuneration for its labor, inseparable from the costs used for living.” 1

Everything is completely different in agriculture. How does production function in this industry? If we leave aside for the moment the purchase of goods from the sterile class, this production requires "annual advances," which "consist in the expenditure made annually on the labors of cultivating the soil." These advances correspond primarily to the means of subsistence consumed by the producers (and their families), and they do not figure in the diagram because they do not lead to the circulation of money between classes (these goods do not leave the productive class, which both produces and consumes them). The difference with industry is this: these annual advances (assumed to be 2 billion liras) are not simply consumed; they reproduce a large total value (equal to 5 billion liras).

With 2 billion liras of annual advances, agriculture thus produces 5 billion liras of product, of which 3 are sold to other classes and 2 are used to restore stocks.

Taking into account the purchase of industrial products, the operations of the productive class look like this: he advances 2 billion liras and buys 1 billion liras worth of products; total – 3 billion liras; it reproduces 5 billion liras; he has a difference left, called the net product (2 billion liras), which he gives to landowners, forming their income.

Two points need to be clarified: one concerns exceptional productivity Agriculture, the other - interest on initial advances and retention. The first point: why is there a pure product in agriculture and why only there? It is the answer to these two questions that lies at the heart of the difference between the productive and sterile classes. Quesnay gives only the most general considerations on this matter in the Economic Table. Two hypotheses can be presented that justify this productivity as a postulate.

The first presents the pure product as a gift of nature associated with the use of the earth. Agriculture is predominantly associated with the cultivation of land, so only it benefits from this gift. There are two possible objections to this naturalistic explanation.

Firstly, nothing prevents us from considering as productive industries those that also, but in a different way, exploit the land or nature, for example, mining. However, this is not done in the physiocratic concept. Secondly, how can we understand that this pure product, coming from the fertility of the land, goes not to those who cultivate it, but to those who own it? Another explanation is needed.

The second hypothesis presents net product as a simple economic expression of land ownership. The existence of a class of landowners who have nothing to sell is unthinkable without their receiving an income, and this income can only be justified by the special privilege of this class, which confers on it a natural right: ownership of land.

The concept of a pure product thus plays a dual role: it expresses social reality (this is how the dominance of the landowning class in society is expressed in economic terms), but at the same time mystifies it (since it assigns to this pure product - and this dominance - a natural origin). The following paragraphs support this interpretation:

“Much of the expenditure of the landowners is at least fruitless; from this we can exclude only the costs of preserving and improving their possessions and increasing fertility. But since they are obliged by natural right to manage and make expenses for the maintenance of their possessions, they must not be confused with that part of the population which constitutes an absolutely sterile class.” 1

“It is precisely the necessity of expenditure, which only landowners can make for the increase of their wealth and for the general good of society, that leads to the fact that the inviolability of landed property is a key condition of the natural order in the government of empires.” 2

The second point concerns interest on initial advances and retention. We must return to the significance of the purchasing of goods by the productive class from the sterile class. These purchases (1 billion lire) are mentioned by Quesnay in his analysis of the “trade market between different classes” (diagram). He does not return to them when studying reproduction, but he insists here on “interest on the advance payment for the establishment of landowners with an economy” (1 billion lire). Although the transition from one concept to another is not as simple as it is in the Economic Table, it must be recognized that we are talking about the same concept.

Agricultural production requires not only "annual advances" but also "down payments" which "form the basis of farming and which cost about five times as much as the annual advances." It's about about the means of exploitation that you need to have in order to engage in agriculture and which do not disappear after the first harvest; today we would talk about fixed capital (buildings, tools, etc.). These farming tools break down over time and must be repaired every year to maintain them in working order (today we would talk about annual depreciation of fixed capital). In addition, farmers must form a fund that insures them against accidents that could destroy their crops.

In order to cover these two elements, the productive class must deduct from sales proceeds the “percentage of advances for setting up the farm,” that is, a certain proportion of the initial advances. They reach, according to Quesnay, a five-fold annual advance, i.e. 10 billion lire, and assuming that the percentage is one tenth, we get 1 billion lire for its value. This billion is spent in the form of purchasing the products of the sterile class, by which are meant, in particular, the implements of agriculture which it produces.

Finally, the addition of 2 billion lire in annual advances and 1 billion lire in interest amounts to what Quesnay calls the “retentions” of the productive class (what he must deduct from the proceeds of the sale of products). The net product is thus equal to the difference between the proceeds from the sale of products by the productive class and this retention.

Annual reproduction of the nation

Productive class Barren class Landowning class

Consumption

Agricultural activities

(reproduction)

Initial Annual

advances advances

Industrial

activity

Agricultural products

Raw Materials Products Consumables

Products that compensate for the wear and tear of the original advance

The arrows have the following meaning:

The flow of benefits corresponding to the sale transaction (which corresponds to the cash flow in diagram 1)

Accumulation of benefits

A technical production operation in which some goods are produced with the help of others.

Together with the use of the initial advances (which leads to their depreciation by one-tenth during the period), the annual advances to agriculture reproduce 5 billion liras of production, of which 3 billion liras are sold to other classes, and 2 billion liras replace the annual advances. Purchasing items from the sterile class for an amount equal to a percentage of the original advance (1 billion liras) allows it to be restored to its original value. Thus, the reproduction process can be resumed in the next period.

Reproduction should not be understood as an outdated synonym for production. Nothing would be more misleading than to reduce agricultural activity to a combination of fixed capital and labor (paid in annual advances) resulting in the production of goods.

In addition, in this case, fruitless activity would also be reproduction (but for some reason without fixed capital). Reproduction involves three inextricably linked elements:

it ensures the preservation of the natural order in society, i.e. recovery economic conditions existence of classes. This is why Quesnay speaks of the “annual reproduction of the nation” (and not of this or that industry);

this maintenance of the natural order presupposes the creation of a pure product for the maintenance of the landowners. The conditions of this creation (the advances necessary for agriculture) must be restored (through the “contributions” of the productive class);

this maintenance also presupposes the circulation of a certain part of the reproducible value (3 out of 5 billion liras). Reproduction is not only production, but also circulation.

The following phrase summarizes the meaning of this concept of reproduction:

“The sum of 5 billion, divided first between the productive class and the landowning class, is spent annually in a prescribed manner, which constantly ensures an equal annual reproduction.” 1

The concept of advances introduces into political economy what will later be called capital, to denote the conditions of production that must be advanced at the beginning of a period and which are restored at the end.

Two clarifications follow from Quesnay's analysis:

in the most general sense, capital is primarily a sum of money. This is explicit for the sterile class's advances, and implicit for the productive class's initial advances, which are spent on purchases from the sterile class (and therefore must be paid back). That the advances of the productive class are made in in kind- only it seems, since they refer to items produced within the same class. Thus, capital for Quesnay is the amount of money advanced for production, and its expenditure makes it possible to provide the conditions for this production;

There is one special category of capital, annual advances, which have the property of producing increased value. This property is expressed by a number (in the example given it is 250%), which can be considered as a measure of the ability of these advances to provide an increase in value. This phenomenon allows us to talk about a productive class.

Finally, the concept of pure product illustrates from two sides that this increase in value is the basis for special income. In other words, the income landowners receive by virtue of their natural right to land is in the nature of monetary profit. Since this profit is produced in agriculture, the income of one class (landowners) comes from another class (peasants).

3. The significance of Quesnay’s views for the development of economic thought

Some of Quesnay's hypotheses seem outdated today: profit is created only in the agricultural sector, there is no profit from capital. When constructing the “economic table,” Canet proceeded from certain premises and made a number of assumptions. He abstracted from the influence of the external market and price fluctuations, considering simple reproduction, which is a legitimate starting point for analysis. Analyzing social reproduction, Canet took the movement of commodity capital, revealing the correct economic tact, since the problem of reproduction is, first of all, the problem of realizing the social product.

In the “Economic Table” only simple reproduction was considered, there was no problem of accumulation. Quesnay did not show how the remaining part of the agricultural product from the farmers was sold. The need to restore the means of labor to the “sterile” was ignored.

But Quesnay’s genius lies in understanding the economy as a set of quantitative relations that ensure its constancy (what he calls reproduction). In particular, the quantities appearing in the “Economic Table” represent two types of relations reflecting the characteristics of a market economy: relations of production with their technical limitations and the mutual correspondence of sectors and the relation of treatment with their cash flows corresponding to the exchange or payment of income. Quesnay anticipates the classical school and invents a method for analyzing the economy as a closed process.

Although in general Quesnay’s doctrine of classes is primitive and unscientific, the fact that he was one of the first to divide society into classes on an economic basis made it possible to show in the “Economic Table” how the annual product is distributed between classes through circulation. This distribution provides the conditions for the resumption of production, or simple reproduction. Moreover, in the "Economic Table" countless individual acts of circulation are combined into a mass movement of the created annual product between the economic classes of society.

Considering Quesnay's doctrine of the pure product and classes of society, Marx showed that declaring agriculture the only productive sector, and the class of farmers the only productive one, had its own background. Land rent as a surplus product created in agriculture appears in its most tangible form.

The main problem that Quesnay solved in the “Economic Table” was the identification of the main economic proportions that ensure the development of the country’s economy. An “economic table” is a diagram that shows how the sale of society’s annual product occurs and how the preconditions for reproduction are formed. In order to show the possibility of simple reproduction on a national scale and economic connections between "classes, Quesnay quite naturally simplified the process of implementation and abstracted from a number of points. He excluded from the analysis the study of the process of accumulation and considered simple reproduction. The "Table" assumes a constant value of money, stability of commodity prices, abstraction from the influence of foreign trade on the sales process.Subsequently, K. Marx uses this approach and, in the analysis of simple reproduction, just like Quesnay, will abstract from price fluctuations and the influence of the foreign market.

K. Marx understood the genius of Quesnay’s “Economic Table” and gave a comprehensive analysis of this work. He wrote that “this was an attempt to present the entire process of production of capital as a process of reproduction, and circulation - only as a form of this process of reproduction... at the same time, it was an attempt to include in this process of reproduction the origin of income, the exchange between capital and income, the relationship between reproductive and final consumption, and in the circulation of capital include the circulation between producers and consumers (in reality, between capital and income); finally, it was an attempt to present, as moments in the process of reproduction, the circulation between two large divisions of productive labor - between the production of raw materials and industry - and all this in one “Table” ... This attempt, made in the second third of the 18th century, in the infancy period of political economy, was a highly ingenious idea, undoubtedly the most ingenious of all that political economy has put forward to this time.”

It was F. Quesnay who gave the first sufficiently deep theoretical substantiation of the provisions on capital in the history of economic thought. Quesnay believed that “Money itself is a sterile wealth that produces nothing.” F. Quesnay not only divided capital into fixed and circulating capital, but was also able to convincingly prove that both of them are in motion.

Quesnay showed how to national economy goods and cash flows between classes, with the result that farmers produce food for all classes, raw materials for industry, seeds for the next year. They transfer the resulting net product to the land owners in the form of rent. For its time this was a very progressive opinion.

Its importance for the development of economic thought was noted by V. S. Nemchinov, calling Quesnay’s “Economic Table” a brilliant rise of human thought. “If we characterize Quesnay’s table in modern economic terms, then it can be considered the first experience in macroeconomic analysis, in which the central place is occupied by the concept of the total social product... Francois Quesnay’s “Economic Table” is the first macroeconomic grid of natural commodities in the history of political economy) and cash flows of material assets. The ideas contained in it are the embryo of future economic models. In particular, when creating a scheme for expanded reproduction, K. Marx paid tribute to Quesnay’s brilliant creation” 1 .

Conclusion

In the Economic Table, Quesnay made an attempt for the first time in the history of political economy to show the basic proportions and main ways of realizing the social product, combining numerous acts of exchange into the mass movement of money and goods. It was he who discovered that the process of reproduction and implementation can proceed uninterruptedly only when certain proportions of the development of the national economy are observed.

The doctrine of Quesnay's reproduction suffered from a number of significant shortcomings. The "Economic Table" was built on the erroneous division of society into classes. By leaving the industrialists without the tools of production (they had completely sold their products), Quesnay deprived them of the opportunity to begin a new production process. The landowner class was mistakenly placed at the center of the implementation process.

Quesnay’s “table” does not fully reveal the distribution of the social product; it did not show the sale of agricultural products within the class of farmers. The influence of the traditions of subsistence farming was felt, in which only surpluses were sold. All this did not allow Quesnay to fully reveal the mechanism of capitalist reproduction. But the scientific limitations of the “Economic Table” do not negate its merits.

The Quesnay table is the first macroeconomic grid of natural (commodity) and cash flows of material assets in the history of political economy. The ideas contained in it are the embryo of future economic models.

Literature

Titova N. E. History of economic teachings: Course of lectures. –M.: Humanite. ed. VLADOS center, 1997.

Agapova I.I. History of economic doctrines: Course of lectures. – M.: Yurist, 2001.

Vasilevsky E.G. “History of economic doctrines”, Part 1 - Moscow: Moscow State University, 1989.

The World History economic thought. M., 1987. T. 1 / Moscow State University. Lomonosov. – M.: Mysl, 1987.

Nemchinov V. S. Economic and mathematical methods and models. M.: Mysl, 1965.

http://econom.nsc.ru/jep/books/047 G. Deleplyas Lectures on the history of economic thought / Ed. Busygina V.P. - Novosibirsk: Novosibirsk State University, 2000.

1 World history of economic thought. M., 1987. T. 1. P. 450.

1 http://econom.nsc.ru/jep/books/047 G. Deleplyas. Lectures on the history of economic thought. Page 10.

1 http://econom.nsc.ru/jep/books/047 G. Deleplyas. Lectures on the history of economic thought. Pp. 13.

1 http://econom.nsc.ru/jep/books/047 G. Deleplyas. Lectures on the history of economic thought. Pp. 17.

1 Nemchinov V. S. Economic and mathematical methods and models. M.: Mysl, 1965. S. 175, 177.



Essay

by subject: « History of Economic Thought"

on the topic: « Economic table of F. Canet"

Leading teacher:

S. Punanov

Checked:

Well EE-301N

Number: 3 . 11 . 1999

Narva 1999

The doctrine of the composition of capital was in the works of Quesnay the starting point for the analysis of the process of reproduction and circulation of all social capital. For the first time in political economy, he introduced and used the concept of “reproduction” as the constant repetition of production and sales. He gave a description of the reproduction process in the famous “Economic Table” (1758), which was subsequently repeatedly commented on in the works of Quesnay himself and his followers. The mathematical calculations used in this work allowed him to show how the gross and net product of France, created in agriculture, circulates in kind and in monetary form. In 1766, Quesnay published An Analysis of the Arithmetic Formula of the Economic Table Showing the Distribution of the Annual Costs of an Agricultural Nation. In the same year, he also published comments on the named work - “Significant notes on the analysis of the Economic Table.” It was the second version of the “Economic Table” (1766) that K. Marx used when analyzing the doctrine of reproduction of F. Quesnay.

In the Economic Table, society is viewed as a single organism, combining three main classes. A description of the class structure of society was necessary for Quesnay, since in his Table the total product is distributed through a process of circulation among three classes. “The nation,” wrote Quesnay, “consists of three classes of citizens: the derivative class, the class of owners and the sterile class.” He included in the productive class, or class of farmers, everyone who cultivates the land, who makes expenses for cultivating the land. Thus, the productive class includes peasants, farmers and agricultural wage workers, that is, everyone who is employed in agriculture. The owner class is those who receive annually the “net product” created in agriculture. Quesnay included the king, landowners, and clergy among the owners. All people employed in industry were declared a "sterile" or unproductive class. This class included hired workers, artisans, capitalists, merchants and small traders. The “sterile” class, like the class of owners, does not create a “pure product,” but unlike the latter, this class works and with its labor creates as much as it consumes.

Quesnay saw his task as proving that the king and landowners were the basis of society. However, he could not put the owner class in first place: this would contradict his physiocratic concept of the primacy of agriculture. Therefore, he found landowners in a special class, placed between the productive and “sterile” classes. It is quite obvious that the theory of Quesnay classes is erroneous. According to his scheme, workers and capitalists, both in industry and in agriculture, were united into one class. When dividing society into classes, Quesnay ignored the main feature - the relationship of the class to the means of production, the existence of exploitation.

However, this class limitation of Quesnay's teaching is explained by historical conditions. In France at that time, the working class was just forming, and capitalist contradictions were in their infancy, since capitalism remained manufacturing and developed in the depths of feudalism. The division of society into farmers, property owners and industrialists actually corresponded to the division of society in the Middle Ages (peasants, nobles, townspeople). From the existing dependence of industry on agricultural production, the physiocrats concluded that industry supposedly does not produce “net income” and is an unproductive industry, and the class of industrialists turns out to be sterile. The correct position that capitalists themselves do not produce “net income” extended to industrial workers, although they not only modify consumer values in the labor process, but also create a “net product” (surplus product). Considering Quesnay's teachings about the “pure product” and the classes of society, Marx shows that declaring agriculture the only productive sector, and the class of farmers the only productive class, had its own background. After all, land rent as a surplus product created in agriculture appears in its most tangible form.

The main problem that Quesnay solved in the “Economic Table” is the identification of the main national economic proportions that ensure the development of the country’s economy. “Economic table” is a diagram that shows how the annual product of society is realized and how the preconditions for reproduction are formed. In order to show the possibility of simple reproduction on a national scale and economic ties between classes, Quesnay quite naturally simplified the implementation process, abstracting from a number of points. He excluded the process of accumulation from the analysis and considered simple reproduction. The “Table” assumes a constant value of money, stability of commodity prices, and excludes the influence of foreign trade on the sales process. Subsequently, K. Marx, using this approach when analyzing simple reproduction, just like Quesnay, will abstract from price fluctuations due to the influence of the external market.

K. Marx revealed the genius of Quesnay’s “Economic Table” by giving a comprehensive analysis of this work. He wrote that “this was an attempt to represent the entire process of capital production as reproduction process, and circulation - only as a form of this process of reproduction... at the same time, it was an attempt to include in this process of reproduction the origin of income, the exchange between capital and income, the relationship between reproductive and final consumption, and in the circulation of capital to include the circulation between producers and consumers (in reality - between capital and income); finally, it was an attempt to present as moments in the process of reproduction the circulation between two large divisions of productive labor - between the production of raw materials and industry - and all this in one “Table” ... This attempt, made in the second third of the 18th century, during the infancy of political economy , was a highly ingenious idea, undoubtedly the most ingenious of all that political economy has put forward to this day.

The starting point of the reproduction process in the “Table” is the annual harvest. Quesnay, based on statistical calculations, estimated the cost gross product agriculture in France at 5 billion livres (food amounted to 4 billion livres, raw materials - 1 billion livres). In addition to this product, farmers have money for the sale of last year’s harvest - 2 billion livres, which will be paid by the owners as rent for the land. An unproductive or "sterile" class has industrial products for 2 billion livres. The total social product, according to Quesnay's calculations, amounted to 7 billion livres. The owners (landowners) received a rent of 2 billion livres from farmers after harvesting.

Under the Quesnay scheme, the impetus for sales is given by landowners who buy 1 billion livres worth of food from farmers. This money ends up with farmers. Further implementation takes place with the help of a second billion livres, with which landowners purchase industrial goods. This is where the participation of the landowner in the process of selling the social product ends. They provided themselves with food and industrial goods, i.e., means of subsistence, for the whole year, having fulfilled their mission in the process of reproduction.

Subsequent exchange of the social product occurs only between the classes of industrialists and farmers. Since industrialists received 1 billion livres for industrial goods sold to landowners, they use this money to buy agricultural products from farmers. 1 billion livres again returned to the farmers who purchase the means of production from the industrial class. Industrialists, using the 1 billion livres received from this sale, buy agricultural raw materials from farmers, to whom the second billion livres returned. With this process, implementation according to Quesnay’s “Table” ends, since after the described movement of goods and money, the necessary conditions to resume the process of production and reproduction on an unchanged scale. Landowners were provided with food and industrial goods worth 2 billion livres, and farmers sold 3 billion livres worth of agricultural products (1 billion to landowners, 2 billion to industrialists). Out of 5 billion livres of agricultural product, they had products worth 2 billion livres left for their own consumption (1 billion in food, 1 billion in seeds). In addition, 2 billion livres were returned to farmers, which they will pay to landowners for renting land. Industrialists under the Quesnay scheme completely sold their products and provided themselves with food (1 billion) and raw materials (1 billion).

Consequently, in the “Economic Table” Quesnay attempted, for the first time in the history of political economy, to show the main ways of realizing the social product by combining numerous acts of exchange into the mass movement of money and goods. This led to the discovery that the process of reproduction and implementation can occur uninterruptedly only if certain proportions of the development of the national economy are observed.

However, the doctrine of Quesnay's reproduction suffered from a number of significant shortcomings. The “Economic Table” was built on an unscientific, erroneous division of society into classes. By leaving the industrialists without the tools of production (they had completely sold their products), Quesnay deprived them of the opportunity to begin a new production process. The landowner class was mistakenly placed at the center of the implementation process.

Type of work: Essay

Subject: Economic tables of F. Quesnay

Discipline: History of Economic Thought

Download: For free

Date posted: 04/12/16 at 18:24

PLAN

Introduction 3

Three versions of the “Economic Table” 3

Francois Quesnay on the three classes of society, the “pure product” 4

Analysis of reproduction in the “Economic Table” by F. Quesnay 5

Conclusion 6

List of sources and literature used 9

INTRODUCTION

« Economic table» Francois Quesnay(1694-1774) - one of the most important achievements of the physiocratic school. An interesting fact is that it was directly typed in the printing house by the King of France himself, Louis XV.

There is an opinion in the literature that the work was appreciated only almost a hundred years after its appearance, but such an opinion is not entirely true. Published in 1758, the "Economic Table" was considered at that time the crown of the physiocratic school. The work was also mentioned by Adam Smith, but was soon forgotten. It was rediscovered by Karl Marx in the mid-19th century. In addition, over the past more than 250 years, the historical place of this economic work in science and social practice was not belittled. On the contrary, over time, the ideas and provisions contained in the “Table” are revealed more and more accurately.

Three versions of the “Economic Table”

It is important to note that François Quesnay created three versions of " Economic table" The first version was presented to Louis XV in 1758. It represented a scheme for the circulation of goods, a zigzag movement of expenses of the productive and sterile classes - Quesnay's "Zigzag".

The second version was created in 1763, which introduces the concept sales price, explaining that only if the market price exceeds base price, the farmer will have a pure product.

And finally, the third, corrected, accompanied by a detailed analysis, version, which was called “Analysis of the Arithmetic Formula of the Economic Table” of 1766, has become a symbol of physiocracy down to the present day. And it was precisely this option that Karl Marx used when analyzing the doctrine of reproduction by Francois Quesnay.

Francois Quesnay about the three classes of society, the “pure product”.

In all variants " Economic table“It is shown in graphs and a numerical example how the circulation of the gross and net product of the nation, created in agriculture, occurs between the three classes of society. To the productive class, or class of farmers, Quesnay included peasants, farmers and agricultural wage workers, that is, everyone involved in agriculture. It is this class, according to Quesnay, that produces a net product by advancing its labor to agriculture and paying the annual income of landowners. The owner class is those who receive annually the net product created in agriculture. To these Quesnay included the king, landowners, and the clergy, who were assigned the role of a connecting link, since it was this class, receiving income from the class of farmers, who paid the expenses of the barren. Yet people employed in industry, that is, outside agriculture, were declared a “sterile” or unproductive class. In the words of Quesnay, “performing other occupations and other types of labor not related to agriculture.” This class included wage workers, artisans, capitalists, merchants and small traders. The “sterile” class, just like the class of landowners, does not create a net product, but unlike the latter, this class works and, with its labor not related to the land, creates as much as it consumes.

In contrast to the “sterile” class, landowners do not work, but are the owners of that factor of production, which, according to Quesnay, is the source of the nation’s wealth.

In other words, Quesnay saw the real source of wealth only in agriculture, and therefore considered the third class sterile, and its role in society is to ensure the transformation of wealth, which increases only through labor in agriculture, and not through the work of an artisan.

It is very important to introduce such a concept as a “net product” - an excess of an agricultural product that is formed after deducting all the costs of its production. François Quesnay analyzed its production, distribution and turnover. In other words, by “net product” we meant surplus product. However, the physiocrats unilaterally reduced it to land rent and considered it the natural fruit of the earth. The contradiction was that the “pure product” was also the result of agricultural labor. Thus, the physiocrats believed that a pure product arises only in agriculture.

Analysis of reproduction in the “Economic Table” by F. Quesnay

The main problem that Quesnay solved in “ Economic table"is to identify the main economic proportions that ensure the development of the country's economy. If we characterize the Quesnay table in modern economic terms, then it can be considered the first experience in macroeconomic analysis.

Francois Quesnay is actually the founder of the theory of reproduction, because it was he who first introduced the term “reproduction”.

« Economic table"shows how the annual product of society is sold and how the preconditions for reproduction are formed. In order to show the possibility of simple reproduction on a national scale and economic ties between classes, Quesnay quite naturally simplified the process of implementation, abstracting from a number of points, the consideration of which would complicate the solution of the problem. So he excluded foreign trade from the analysis and assumed the condition of constant prices for goods. That is, his model is quite abstract, but it is a scientific abstraction that allows one to penetrate into the essence of things.

What is the essence of Francois Quesnay’s concept of reproduction of the social product, its content “ Economic table»?

The starting point of the reproduction process in the “Table” is the annual harvest. Quesnay, based on statistical calculations, estimated the value of the gross agricultural product of France at 5 billion livres, of which 4 billion livres were food and 1 billion were raw materials. In addition, farmers have 2 billion livres for the sale of last year's harvest, which will be paid to the owners as rent for the land. With this money, landowners buy food from farmers, thereby returning 1 billion livres to them and spend another 1 billion livres on purchases from the sterile class (on clothes, shoes, luxury goods, etc.). This is where the participation of land owners in the process of selling the social product ends. They provided themselves with the means of subsistence for the whole year, having fulfilled their mission in the process of reproduction. With 1 billion livres at their disposal, artisans buy food from farmers with this money. Thus, farmers already have 2 billion livres at their disposal. Next, the productive class buys equipment worth 1 billion livres from the barren, and the barren buys from the farmers, in turn, the raw materials from which their goods will be produced.

As a result, farmers are again left with 2 billion livres, which will be spent next year on rent to landowners.

This is where the process of implementation according to Quesnay’s “Table” ends, since after the described circuit the necessary conditions have been created for the resumption of the process of production and reproduction on an unchanged scale. This means that land owners were provided with products and goods worth 2 billion livres, farmers sold products worth 3 billion livres, of which 1 billion went to owners, and 2 billion to artisans. Out of 5 billion livres of agricultural product, farmers were left with products worth 2 billion livres for their own consumption, which were spent on food (1 billion) and equipment (1 billion). In addition, 2 billion livres were returned to farmers, which they will pay to landowners for renting land. Industrialists also completely sold their products and provided themselves with food and raw materials worth 2 billion.

Thus, Francois Quesnay was the first to show the main paths of movement of the social product in monetary and in-kind form both in the sphere of production and in the sphere of circulation. This led to the discovery that the process of reproduction and implementation can occur uninterruptedly only if certain proportions of the development of the national economy are observed. This means that Quesnay defined the conditions under which the production and sale of goods to meet the needs of society occur harmoniously.

However, in the “Economic Table” only simple reproduction was considered and there was no problem of accumulation. Quesnay did not show how the remaining part of the agricultural product from the farmers was sold. From Quesnay's point of view, this was a natural paradox in which balance was also achieved naturally.

CONCLUSION

In his " Table» Francois Quesnay For the first time, he moves away from politics and philosophy, approaching mathematics, serving as the basis for the further development of economics.

This is precisely what has become a new, fundamental direction in science, which means transferring the doctrine of the reproduction of the social product from the sphere of theory to the sphere economic activity. The “Economic Table” was assessed by outstanding scientists of the world as a work of genius, as a new rise in the creative thought of mankind, and is still the object of commentary by many economists. It served as the basis that Marx used in his schemes of reproduction.

Economic table by Francois Quesnay

In addition, in a sense, François Quesnay's analysis was reflected in Leontief's models.

LIST OF SOURCES AND LITERATURE USED

1. Blaug M. Economic thought in retrospect / M. Blaug. — 4th ed. - M.: Delo Ltd, 1994. - Chapter 1.
2. History of Economic Thought: Tutorial/ ed. V. Avtonomova, O. Ananina, N. Makasheva - M.: INFRA-M, 2002. — 784 p. — (Series “Higher Education”).
3. Quesnay F. Physiocrats. Selected economic works / Quesnay F., Turgot A.R.J., Dupont de Nemours P.S. [preface P.N. Klyukin; lane from French, English, German] - M.: Eksmo, 2008. - 1200 p. — (Anthology of economic thought).
4. Negishi T. History of economic theory: Textbook. - M.: JSC "AspectPress", 1995. - Ch. 2.
5. Sludkovskaya M.A. Development of Western economic thought in the socio-political context: Textbook / Sludkovskaya M.A., Rozinskaya N.A. - M.: INFRA-M, 2010. - 220 p.
6. François Quesnay’s economic table is 250 years old / Gazizullin F. G., Syurkova S. M. // Problems modern economy. - 2008. - N 1 (25).
7. Yadgarov Y.S. History of economic doctrines: Textbook / Ya. S. Yadgarov - 4th ed., revised. and additional - M.: INFRA-M, 2009. - 480 p.
8. Orlov A. The transition from F. Quesnay’s “Economic Table” to K. Marx’s reproduction schemes // Financial Analytics. 2007. URL: http://www.finanal.ru/009-010/transition-from-the-economic-table-f-kene-to-reproduction-schemes-to-Marx (access date: 03/15/2016).

Essay not suitable? You can order from our partners the writing of any educational work on any topic.

Order a new job

To download for free Essay at maximum speed, register or log in to the site.

Important! All Essays presented for free download are intended to create an outline or basis for your own scientific works.

If the Essay, in your opinion, is of poor quality, or you have already seen this work, please let us know.

F. Quesnay was the founder of the teachings of the physiocrats. He proceeded from the fact that a “pure product” is created only in agriculture. Based on this, he divided the whole society into three classes:

1. productive class (farmers, agricultural wage workers);
2. owners (landowners, king);
3. "sterile" class (industrialists, merchants, artisans and wage workers in industry).

Quesnay presented the circulation of the annual product in the form of acts of transfer of part of the annual product from one of the above classes to another.

Before circulation begins, the farmer class pays the landowner class a rent of 2 billion livres for the use of the land. The appeal includes five acts:

1. The landowning class buys 1 billion livres worth of food from the farming class.

2. The landowning class buys 1 billion livres worth of industrial goods from the “sterile” class for personal consumption.

"Economic table" Quesnay1

3. The “sterile” class uses the money received for their goods (1 billion livres) to buy food products from the farmers’ class.

4. The farmer class buys 1 billion livres worth of industrial products from the “sterile” class, which are used to replace the materials consumed and the wear and tear of the instruments of production.

5. The “sterile” class buys 1 billion livres worth of raw materials from the farming class.

The circulation of the annual product is completed, all classes have satisfied their needs, the used funds of agriculture and industry have been reimbursed; the next cycle of production and distribution of the social product can begin. The listed procedures can be presented in the form of a diagram (see figure).

In characterizing Quesnay’s “Economic Table,” it must be emphasized that it represents the first attempt in the history of economic science to analyze the reproduction of the social product.

Economic doctrine of the physiocrats

Classical political economy in France after P. Boisguillebert was represented by the school of physiocrats, founded in the middle of the 18th century.

Francois Quesnay (1694-1767). It included a large group of economists (A. Turgot, V. Mirabeau, V. Dupont de Nemours, G. Letron, etc.).

The starting point in the concept of the physiocrats was the doctrine of “natural order”. It meant recognition of the objective reality of the surrounding world, the existence of which was explained by compliance with the “natural order” or “natural law”. Quesnay considered such a right as an expression of the highest justice coming from God. In his opinion, adherence to the “natural order” is obligatory for all people simply because the “natural law” that represents it is recognized by the “light of reason.” Quesnay did not share the conclusions of the enlighteners. He believed that a person cannot claim “everything” (this is equivalent to the right of a swallow to all flying midges), but must proceed from what he is able to provide with his labor. Physiocrats relied on the idea of ​​“natural law” to determine existing norms of human behavior. In accordance with the doctrine of the “natural order,” Quesnay and his colleagues recognized economic and political laws as natural (independent of people and political power). Such laws were interpreted as eternal.

The school of physiocrats sharply criticized monetarism. She rejected the erroneous premises of his concept that the only form of wealth was gold, and its source was foreign trade. F. Quesnay and his colleagues believed that wealth consists of use values. Money played the role of an intermediary in circulation. They saw the source of wealth in production, and not in trade, which, in their opinion, is characterized only by the exchange of equal values ​​(equivalent exchange). The merit of the physiocrats is that they transferred the study of the origin of the surplus product to the sphere of direct production and thereby laid the foundation for the analysis of capitalist production.

The physiocrats were among the first to analyze capital.

At the same time, their interpretation of production is one-sided: the sphere of production is limited only to agriculture. Hence, the only productive labor was considered to be the work of farmers. The physiocratic system acted as an expression of a new capitalist society, making its way within the feudal framework. To explain the process, the physiocrats took a branch of labor that “comes out independently of the circulation process,” which they saw only in agriculture. From their point of view, industry was not a productive sector of the economy.

The central place in the teachings of the physiocrats was occupied by the problem of the “pure product” and its production. This is an excess over the part that replaced wages. In other words, by “net product” we meant surplus product. Based on the fact that “land is the only source of wealth,” Quesnay believed that the “pure product” is produced only in agriculture. From this point of view, industry turned out to be “sterile.” Rent was considered the only form of pure product.

The physiocrats interpreted the production of a “pure product” in contradictory ways. On the one hand, it was presented as the result of the natural process of growth characteristic of agriculture, and therefore as a gift of nature. At the same time, the “net product” also appears to them as the result of agricultural labor, an excess over wages. Profit was seen as a type wages.

In accordance with his understanding of production, F. Quesnay divided society into three classes: 1) owners (nobility, clergy, king and retinue, bureaucrats); 2) farmers, which included both capitalists and hired workers; 3) “sterile”, which included the commercial and industrial population of the country.

The physiocrats categorically rejected the economic doctrine of mercantilism. In the field of economic policy, they acted as supporters of state non-interference in the economic life of the country, opponents of all kinds of monopolies, defending freedom entrepreneurial activity in conditions of capitalist competition.

The pinnacle of the physiocratic system was the attempt to analyze the reproduction of social capital, undertaken by F. Quesnay in the famous “Economic Table” (1758).

Considering the process of reproduction, F. Quesnay analyzed the origin of income, the exchange between capital and income, and the relationship between productive and final consumption. As a moment in the process of reproduction, he tried to imagine “the circulation between two large divisions of productive labor - between the production of raw materials and industry.” All this was embodied in one economic table.

When constructing the “Economic Table,” Quesnay proceeded from certain premises and made a number of assumptions. He abstracted from the influence of the external market and price fluctuations, considering simple reproduction, which is a legitimate starting point for analysis. Analyzing social reproduction, Quesnay took the movement of commodity capital, revealing the correct economic tact, since the problem of reproduction is, first of all, the problem of realizing the social product.

The “Economic Table” embodied all the main provisions of the physiocrats: the division of society into three classes (landowners, farmers and “sterile”); the net product (surplus value) is produced only in agriculture; industry is characterized only by the addition of values; exchange of equivalents in trade as a result of free competition. Farmers' capital is divided into initial annual advances. Quesnay introduced a distinction between the value and natural forms of the total social product, and distinguished between the categories of capital and income.

Ticket No. 32 economic table f. Quesne and its meaning.

Farmers' capital consists of two parts: 1) initial advances (fixed capital) in the amount of 10 billion livres, which last for 10 years, annually a tenth (1 billion livres) is included in the cost of the annual product; 2) annual advances (working capital) in the amount of 2 billion livres, which cover the costs of raw materials and wages of all agricultural workers; this part of the capital serves for one year, and its value is included in the cost of the product; it is fully refundable. The cost of farmers' annual product, except transferred capital value(3 billion livres), includes a net product value of 2 billion livres and totals 5 billion livres.

In its natural form, the agricultural product consisted of: 1) seeds and food required to reimburse working capital; 2) food for exchange and 3) raw materials for industry.

The value of the total social product also includes the value of the product produced by the “sterile” (2 billion livres). In their natural form, these are industrial products. The value of the total social product as a whole is thus 7 billion livres.

Quesnay’s “Economic Table” includes essentially two tables: a large one, reflecting the movement of the “net product,” and a small one, containing an image of the entire process of reproduction and circulation of social capital. The sale of the social product is timed to coincide with the end of the business year (harvest). The entire process can be summarized in the form of several large acts.

It begins with the fact that landowners, who have money in the amount of 2 billion livres (rent received during the previous period), purchase food from farmers for 1 billion livres, and for the second billion livres they buy industrial products from the “sterile” (act 2).

The “sterile” class uses the proceeds (1 billion livres) to purchase food from farmers (Act 3). Farmers, in turn, buy 1 billion livres worth of manufactured goods from the “sterile” to replace the worn-out part of the tools (Act 4). The “sterile” farmers purchase 1 billion livres worth of raw materials needed to continue production (Act 5).

The implementation process is mediated by the movement of money. The first half of them (1 billion livres) after the first act goes out of circulation and remains with farmers. The second billion livres serve sales and ultimately also end up with farmers. Money in the amount of 2 billion livres will be paid by landowners as rent. Taking this circumstance into account, F. Quesnay put forward the demand that all taxes in the state be paid by rent recipients - land owners.

In the “Economic Table” only simple reproduction was considered, there was no problem of accumulation. Quesnay did not show how the remaining part of the agricultural product from the farmers was sold. The need to restore the means of labor to the “sterile” was ignored.

Nevertheless, F. Quesnay’s “Economic Table” was the first to show the conditions necessary for the implementation of the reproductive process.

The teachings of the physiocrats were completed by the outstanding economist and prominent statesman of France Anne Robert Jacques Turgot (1727-1781). From 1761 he served as royal intendant in Limoges, and from 1774 to 1776 he served as comptroller general of finance. His main work, “Reflections on the Education and Distribution of Wealth,” was published as a separate book in 1776. Explaining the concept of the physiocrats, Turgot made a number of significant additions to it. It was with him that the physiocratic system took on its most developed form.

Turgot drew attention to the emergence of economic inequality. He saw the reason for the emergence of wage labor in the separation of producers from the land. Turgot put forward a more mature interpretation of the class structure of society, distinguishing among farmers and the “sterile”, on the one hand, masters, and on the other hand, hired workers. He came closer to understanding the meaning of ownership of the means of production and differentiation of society.

Turgot tried to interpret the problem of capital accumulation. He was the first to point out the difference between money and capital. He planned to allocate profits as special type income. Considering wages, Turgot associated their movement with competition between workers in the labor market. He believed that this ensured that wages were kept to a minimum of subsistence.

As controller general of finance, Turgot made efforts to implement the doctrine of the physiocrats. He abolished the guilds, freed the peasants from road duties, introduced freedom of grain trade, and tried to establish single tax for ground rent. However, even such limited innovations met with stubborn resistance from the nobility, the court nobility, and Turgot was forced to resign

Let's consider the content economic tables of Quesnay .

Reproduction there is a process of production in a continuous flow of its renewal. One of the key problems of social production is the problem of ensuring its proportionality, in particular, correspondence between production and consumption, income and expenses of economic entities, as well as sectors of the economy.

Quesnay is the first economist who tried to analyze the production process and the issue of proportionality of reproduction on a national scale.

Quesnay is the founder of the physiocrats.

"Economic Table" by F. Quesnay

In 1758 he published a work entitled " Economic table"(in total there are four known versions of the Quesnay table). It was a work of genius for that period - the first insight into the secrets of social reproduction. He was prompted to invent the economic table by the discovery of closed circulation in humans.

Quesnay, as a physiocrat, believed that the only sphere of the economy where a pure product is created is agriculture.

A pure product in his understanding is profit. This is not entirely true, but it is a step forward compared to the mercantilists. Before him, mercantilists believed that the subject of economic theory was the exchange of goods.

IN " Economic table» Quesnay considers society in two ways - as one whole, national production, and from the perspective of the unity of three classes, which differ in their contribution to national production.

Firstly, he emphasized performance class- peasantry, farmers, their hired workers, sharecroppers. According to Quesnay, the productive class had to work the land for the state. He had to make expenses for cultivating the land, reimburse these expenses from income, generate his own income, spend part of it on maintaining the culture of agriculture and support the owners of the land.

Secondly, land owning class- king, landowners, clergy. Does not engage in production and lives off money from the productive class, paid for renting land.

Third, sterile or sterile class- everyone who works outside of agriculture - factory owners, hired workers, small traders, servants, etc.

IN " Economic table» Quesnay suggested that performance class at the beginning of each year, it owns 10 billion livres of tools, 2 billion livres of agricultural products necessary for production itself (seeds, feed for livestock, food for itself, etc.), and 2 billion livres.

TO land owner class has nothing, the sterile class has funds worth 2 billion, of which 1 is agricultural raw materials subject to industrial processing, and 1 is consumer goods for itself.

Within one year performance class creates products worth 5 billion. For the right to use the land, he pays its owners 2 billion. Of the 5 billion livres of products performance class replaces its working capital, as for the 10 billion tools of labor, Quesnay abstracts from them and does not take them into account.

U productive class 3 billion livres left. Land Owner Class 1 billion is spent on purchasing agricultural products from the productive class, i.e. the productive class earns 1 billion livres. The owners spend the remaining 1 billion on industrial products, 1 billion is gained sterile class. The owner class has completely used up the money.

Barren class, having received money from the sale of industrial products to land owners, purchases agricultural products worth 1 billion. As a result performance class completely forms the cash fund that he paid to the land owners. He has 1 billion worth of products left. For these products performance class exchanges industrial products with sterile grade. The process of reproduction for the productive class showed a balance of all the main parts.

Barren class sold 1 billion worth of products to the owners, exchanged 1 billion worth of their products for agricultural products, and consumed something.

IN " Economic table» Quesnay made a conclusion: barren class lives off unequal exchange, sells products for more than they cost.

Consideration of the essence of the pure product. Productive and “fruitless” work. Description of the class structure of society. Analysis of reproduction in the “Economic Table” by F. Quesnay. The significance of the views of the French economist for the development of economic thought.

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Features of the theory of reproduction by F. Quesnay and K. Marx

Characteristics of the economic doctrine of F. Quesnay at the stage of the emergence of classical political economy. Studying the theory of reproduction of K. Marx as one of the last leaders. The significance of the theory of reproduction of Quesnay and Marx for the development of economic thought.

test, added 01/16/2011

Francois Quesnay

Francois Quesnay, as the leader of the French school of physiocrats. The development of his teachings in the works of economic theorists. Life path Francois Quesnay. Views of Quesnay the Economist. Quesnay's program. Quesnay's concept of natural order. The doctrine of the pure product of Quesnay.

abstract, added 12/01/2007

Analytical concept of the circulation of economic life by F. Quesnay

F. Quesnay's concept of natural order. The role of land and agriculture in the economy. Division of capital into fixed and circulating capital according to its productive characteristics. Historical significance of Quesnay's theory of social reproduction in economic science.

test, added 02/02/2015

Economic doctrine physiocrats

The history of the founding of the physiocratic schools, their conceptual ideas. Representation of economic processes by analogy with the circulatory system in the body in Quesnay’s “Economic Tables”. Economic doctrine of Turgot.

Economic table F Quesnay (page 1 of 2)

abstract, added 09/24/2011

Historical significance and shortcomings of the physiocratic theory

Development of the concept of physiocrats in the works of Quesnay and Turgot. Distribution of income between owners of means of production and hired workers. The role of physiocratic theory in the history of economic doctrines. Scheme of reproduction of the social product.

abstract, added 03/04/2010

Features of the physiocratic methodology and the creation of the first macroeconomic model

Analysis of the principles of the methodology of Francois Quesnay and Anne Turgot. Economic doctrine of the physiocrats. Creation of the first macroeconomic model. The significance of the provisions of the physiocratic theory and the arithmetic formula “Economic Table” for the modern economy.

course work, added 10/07/2014

History of the creation of physiocracy

Study of the provisions of physiocracy in the works of F. Quesnay. The doctrine of pure product and classes. Theory of capital and reproduction. Economic doctrine of Turgot. The meaning of the theory of money, value, income. Introduction of free trade of agricultural products within the country.

presentation, added 12/14/2015

Features of the physiocratic teachings of F. Quesnay

F. Quesnay as a representative of the school of physiocrats, the provisions of his concept: the doctrine of the “pure product” and the analysis of capitalist production, the material forms of the composition of capital, the use and exchange value of goods, a description of the reproduction process.

test, added 05/20/2011

Development of economic thought in ancient and medieval society

General characteristics of the trend in the emergence and development of economic thought in the ancient world and the Middle Ages. A presentation of the views of ancient Greek thinkers on the nature of private property and slavery, the importance of the development of agriculture, crafts and trade.

abstract, added 11/05/2011

Formation and development of macroeconomics

Economic table F. Quesnay. Models of reproduction by K. Marx. Main macroeconomic schools. Indicators of the system of national accounts. Basic macroeconomic identity. Demand for goods and services. Interest rate and savings as its function.