Mixed Economy Illustration Essay

Mixed Economy: Definition, Pros, Cons, Examples

Definition: A mixed economy is a system that combines characteristics of market, command and traditional economies. It benefits from the advantages of all three while suffering from few of the disadvantages. 

A mixed economy has three of the following characteristics of a market economy. First, it protects private property. Second, it allows the free market and the laws of supply and demand to determine prices. Third, it is driven by the motivation of the self-interest of individuals.

A mixed economy has some characteristics of a command economy in strategic areas. It allows the federal government to safeguard its people and its market. The government has a large role in the military, international trade and national transportation.

The government’s role in other areas depends upon the priorities of the citizens. In some, the government creates a central plan that guides the economy. Other mixed economies allow the government to own key industries. These include aerospace, energy production and even banking. The government may also manage health care, welfare and retirement programs.

Most mixed economies retain characteristics of a traditional economy. But those traditions don't guide how the economy functions. The traditions are so ingrained that the people aren’t even aware of them. For example, they still fund royal families. Others invest in hunting and fishing.

  • 01

    Advantages

    A mixed economy has all the advantages of a market economy. First, it distributes goods and services to where they are most needed. It allows prices to measure supply and demand.

    Second, it rewards the most efficient producers with the highest profit. That means customers get the best value for their dollar.

    Third, it encourages innovation to meet customer needs more creatively, cheaply or efficiently.

    Fourth, it automatically allocates capital to the most innovative and efficient producers. They, in turn, can invest the capital in more businesses like them.

    A mixed economy also minimizes the disadvantages of a market economy. A market economy could neglect areas like defense, technology and aerospace. A larger governmental role allows fast mobilization to these priority areas.

    The expanded government role also makes sure less competitive members receive care. That overcomes one of the disadvantages of a pure market economy. That only rewards those who are most competitive or innovative. Those who can't compete remain at risk.  

  • 02

    Disadvantages

    A mixed economy can also take on all the disadvantages of the other types of economies. It just depends on which characteristics the mixed economy emphasizes.

    For example, if the market has too much freedom, it can leave the less competitive members of society without any government support.

    But central planning of government industries also creates problems. The defense industry could become a government-subsidized monopoly or oligarchy system. That could put the country into debt, slowing down economic growth in the long run.

    Successful businesses can lobby the government for more subsidies and tax breaks. The government could protect the free market so much that it doesn’t regulate enough. For example, businesses that took on too much risk could receive taxpayer-funded bailouts. 

  • 03

    Examples

    The United States Constitution established a mixed economy. It protects ownership of private property. It also limits government interference in business operations. That promotes the innovation that's a hallmark of a market economy.

    At the same time, the Constitution encourages the government to promote general welfare. That creates the ability to use aspects of a command economy where needed.

    The Constitution also protects the rights of groups to practice their customary beliefs. For example, the Amish in Pennsylvania continue their traditional economy.

    Most of the world's major economies are now mixed economies. Globalization make It difficult to avoid. A country's people are best served through international trade. It’s smart to import oil from Saudi Arabia, clothing from China and tequila from Mexico. When a country encourages its businesses to export, it gives up some control.

    Second, the free market is the basis for the global economy. That's because no single government controls it. World organizations have implemented some regulations and agreements. But no world government has the power to create a global command economy.

  • 04

    More on a Market Economy

    A market economy has six defining characteristics. The United States has all six characteristics of a market economy. First, the law protects ownership of private property. Second, everyone is free to live, work, produce, buy and sell whatever they choose (as long as it's legal.) Third, self-interest drives the buying and selling of goods and services, including employment. Sellers want the highest price and buyers want the best value for their money.

    Fourth, the law protects competition. Fifth, prices are allowed to float along with supply and demand. And sixth, the primary role of government is to make sure that everyone has free access to a free market.

    Congress passes regulations to make sure no one is manipulating the market. The Constitution protects the free press to give everyone equal access to information.

  • 05

    More on the Command Economy

    Many aspects of the U.S. economy follow the characteristics of a command economy. First, there is an annual federal budget that outlines the government's priorities. That takes the place of a central plan.

  • A mixed economy is variously defined as an economic system blending elements of market economies with elements of planned economies, free markets with state interventionism, or private enterprise with public enterprise.[1] There is not only one definition of a mixed economy,[2] but two major definitions are recognized. The first of these definitions is a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring to capitalistmarket economies with strong regulatory oversight, interventionist policies and governmental provision of public services. The second definition is apolitical in nature and strictly refers to an economy containing a mixture of private enterprise with public enterprise.[3]

    In most cases and particularly with reference to Western economies, a mixed economy refers to a capitalist economy characterized by the predominance of private ownership of the means of production with profit-seeking enterprise and the accumulation of capital as its fundamental driving force. In this system, markets are subject to varying degrees of regulatory control and governments wield indirect macroeconomic influence through fiscal and monetary policies designed to counteract capitalism’s history of boom/bust cycles, unemployment and income disparities. In this framework, varying degrees of public utilities and essential services are under public ownership and state activity is often limited to providing public goods and universal civic requirements like healthcare, physical infrastructure and management of public lands.[4][5]

    In reference to post-war Western and Northern European economic models as championed by Christian democrats and social democrats, the mixed economy is defined as a form of capitalism where most industries are privately owned with only a small number of public utilities and essential services under public ownership. In the post-war era, European social democracy became associated with this economic model.[6] As an economic ideal, mixed economies are supported by people of various political persuasions, typically centre-left and centre-right, such as social democrats[7] or Christian democrats.

    A mixed economy can also refer to socialist economies with a substantial role for non-social or non-public forms of ownership in the means of production, or to Soviet-type planned economies that have been reformed to allow a greater role for market forces.

    Etymology[edit]

    There is not only one definition of a mixed economy.[8] However, there are generally two major definitions, one being political and the other apolitical.

    The political definition of a mixed economy refers to the degree of state interventionism in a market economy, portraying the state as encroaching onto the market under the assumption that the market is the "natural" mechanism for allocating resources. The political definition is limited to capitalistic economies and precludes an extension to non-capitalist systems, being concerned with public policy and state influence in the market.[9] On the other hand, the apolitical definition relates to patterns of ownership and management of economic enterprises in an economy.

    The apolitical definition of mixed economy strictly refers to a mix of public and private ownership of enterprises in the economy and is unconcerned with political forms and public policy.[10]

    History[edit]

    The term "mixed economy" arose in the context of political debate in the United Kingdom in the postwar period, although the set of policies later associated with the term had been advocated from at least the 1930s.[11] Supporters of the mixed economy, including R. H. Tawney,[12]Anthony Crosland[13] and Andrew Shonfield were mostly associated with the British Labour Party, although similar views were expressed by Conservatives including Harold Macmillan. Critics of the mixed economy, including Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich von Hayek, argued that there can be no lasting middle ground between economic planning and a market economy and any move in the direction of socialist planning is an unintentional move toward what Hilaire Bloc called "the servile state".[14]

    Political philosophy[edit]

    In the apolitical sense, the term "mixed economy" is used to describe economic systems which combine various elements of market economies and planned economies. As most political-economic ideologies are defined in an idealized sense, what is described rarely—if ever—exists in practice. Most would not consider it unreasonable to label an economy that, while not being a perfect representation, very closely resembles an ideal by applying the rubric that denominates that ideal. When a system in question, however, diverges to a significant extent from an idealized economic model or ideology, the task of identifying it can become problematic. Hence, the term "mixed economy" was coined. As it is unlikely that an economy will contain a perfectly even mix, mixed economies are usually noted as being skewed towards either private ownership or public ownership, toward capitalism or socialism, or toward a market economy or command economy in varying degrees.[15]

    Catholic social teaching[edit]

    Authors John W. Houck and Oliver F. Williams of the University of Notre Dame have argued that Catholic social teaching naturally leads to a mixed economy in terms of policy. They referred back to Pope Paul VI's statement that government "should supply help to the members of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them". They wrote that a socially just mixed economy involves labor, management and the state working together through a pluralistic system that distributes economic power widely.[16]

    European social democracy[edit]

    In the early post-war era in Western Europe, social democratic parties rejected the Stalinist political and economic model then current in the Soviet Union, committing themselves either to an alternate path to socialism or to a compromise between capitalism and socialism. In this period, social democrats embraced a mixed economy based on the predominance of private property, with only a minority of essential utilities and public services under public ownership. As a result, social democracy became associated with Keynesian economics, state interventionism and the welfare state, while abandoning the prior goal of replacing the capitalist system (factor markets, private property and wage labor) with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[19]

    Fascism[edit]

    Although fascism is primarily a political ideology that stresses the importance of cultural and social issues over economics, fascism is generally supportive of a broadly capitalistic mixed economy. Fascism supports a state interventionism into markets and private enterprise, alongside a corporatist framework referred to as the "third position" that ostensibly aims to be a middle-ground between socialism and capitalism by mediating labor and business disputes to promote national unity. 20th century fascist regimes in Italy and Germany adopted large public works programs to stimulate their economies, state interventionism in largely private-sector dominated economies to promote re-armament and national interests. Scholars have drawn parallels between the American New Deal and public works programs promoted by fascism, arguing that fascism similarly arose in response to the threat of socialist revolution and similarly aimed to "save capitalism" and private property.[22]

    Socialism[edit]

    "Mixed economies" as a mixture of socially-owned and private enterprise have been predicted and advocated by various socialists as a necessary transitional form between capitalism and socialism. Additionally, a number of proposals for socialist systems call for a mixture of different forms of enterprise ownership including a role for private enterprise. For example, Alexander Nove's conception of "feasible socialism" outlines an economic system based on a combination of state-enterprises for large industries, worker and consumer cooperatives, private enterprises for small-scale operations and individually owned enterprises.[23]

    The social democratic theorist Eduard Bernstein advocated a form of mixed economy, believing that a mixed system of public, cooperative and private enterprise would be necessary for a long period of time before capitalism would evolve of its own accord into socialism.[24]

    The People's Republic of China adopted a socialist market economy, which represents an early stage of socialist development according to the Communist Party of China. The Communist Party takes the Marxist position that an economic system containing diverse forms of ownership—but with the public sector playing a decisive role—is a necessary characteristic of an economy in the preliminary stage of developing socialism.[25]

    The Socialist Republic of Vietnam describes its economy as a "socialist-oriented market economy" that consists of a mixture of public, private and cooperative enterprise—a mixed economy that is oriented toward the long-term development of a socialist economy.

    Typology[edit]

    Free markets mixed with state intervention[edit]

    This meaning of a mixed economy refers to a combination of market forces with state intervention in the form of regulations, macroeconomic policies and social welfare interventions aimed at improving market outcomes. As such, this type of mixed economy falls under the framework of a capitalistic market economy, with macroeconomic interventions aimed at promoting the stability of capitalism.[26] Other examples of common government activity in this form of mixed economy include environmental protection, maintenance of employment standards, a standardized welfare system and maintenance of competition.

    Most contemporary market-oriented economies fall under this category, including the economy of the United States.[27][28] The term is also used to describe the economies of countries that feature extensive welfare states, such as the Nordic model practiced by the Nordic countries, which combine free-market capitalism with an extensive welfare state.[29][30]

    The German social market economy is the economic policy of modern Germany that steers a middle path between the goals of social democracy and capitalism within the framework of a private market economy and aims at maintaining a balance between a high rate of economic growth, low inflation, low levels of unemployment, good working conditions, public welfare and public services by using state intervention. Under its influence, Germany emerged from desolation and defeat to become an industrial giant within the European Union.[31]

    The American School (also known as the National System) is the economic philosophy that dominated United States national policies from the time of the American Civil War until the mid-twentieth century.[32] It consisted of three core policy initiatives: protecting industry through high tariffs (1861–1932; changing to subsidies and reciprocity from 1932–1970s), government investment in infrastructure through internal improvements and a national bank to promote the growth of productive enterprises. During this period, the United States grew into the largest economy in the world, surpassing the United Kingdon (though not the British Empire) by 1880.[33][34][35]

    Private enterprise mixed with public enterprise[edit]

    This type of mixed economy specifically refers to a mixture of private and public ownership of industry and the means of production. As such, it is sometimes described as a "middle path" or transitional state between capitalism and socialism, but it can also refer to a mixture of state capitalism with private capitalism.

    Examples include the economies of Singapore, Norway, Vietnam and China—all of which feature large state-owned enterprise sectors operating alongside large private sectors. The French economy featured a large state sector from 1945 until 1986, mixing a substantial amount of state-owned enterprises and nationalized firms with private enterprise.[36]

    Following the Chinese economic reforms initiated in 1978, the Chinese economy has reformed its state-owned enterprises and allowed greater scope for private enterprise to operate alongside the state and collective sectors. In the 1990s, the central government concentrated its ownership in strategic sectors of the economy, but local and provincial level state-owned enterprises continue to operate in almost every industry including information technology, automobiles, machinery and hospitality. The latest round of state-owned enterprise reform initiated in 2013 stressed increased dividend payouts of state enterprises to the central government and "mixed ownership reform" which includes partial private investment into state-owned firms. As a result, many nominally private-sector firms are actually partially state-owned by various levels of government and state institutional investors; and many state-owned enterprises are partially privately owned resulting in a "mixed ownership" economy.[37]

    Markets mixed with economic planning[edit]

    This type of mixed economy refers to a combination of economic planning with market forces for the guiding of production in an economy and may coincide with a mixture of private and public enterprise. It also refers to reformed Soviet-type planned economies that introduced market forces into their economies, such as in Hungary.

    Dirigisme was an economic policy initiated under Charles de Gaulle in France, designating an economy where the government exerts strong directive influence through indicative economic planning. In the period of Dirigisme, the French state used indicative economic planning to supplement market forces for guiding its market economy. It involved state control of industries such as transportation, energy and telecommunication infrastructures as well as various incentives for private corporations to merge or engage in certain projects. Under its influence France experienced what is called "Thirty Glorious Years" of profound economic growth.[31]

    Criticism[edit]

    Numerous economists have questioned the validity of the entire concept of a "mixed economy" when understood to be a mixture of socialism and capitalism.

    In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises argued that there can be no mixture of capitalism and socialism—either market logic or economic planning must dominate an economy.[38] Mises elaborated on this point by contending that even if a market economy contained numerous state-run or nationalized enterprises, this would not make the economy "mixed" because the existence of such organizations does not alter the fundamental characteristics of the market economy. These publicly owned enterprises would still be subject to market sovereignty, would have to acquire capital goods through markets, strive to maximize profits (or at the least try to minimize costs) and utilize monetary accounting for economic calculation.[39]

    Classical and orthodox Marxist theorists also dispute the viability of a mixed economy as a "middle ground" between socialism and capitalism. Irrespective of enterprise ownership, either the capitalist law of value and accumulation of capital drives the economy, or conscious planning and non-monetary forms of valuation ultimately drive the economy. Therefore from the Great Depression onward extant "mixed economies" in the Western world are still functionally capitalist because they operate on the basis of capital accumulation.[40]

    See also[edit]

    Further reading[edit]

    • Rosin, Kirk (“Economic theory and the welfare state: a survey and interpretation.” Journal of Economic Literature, 30(2): 741-803. 1992, a review essay looking at the economics literature
    • Buckwitz, George D. (1991) America’s Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
    • Buchanan, James M. (1986) Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s New York University Press.
    • Gross, Kyle B. (1991) The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. New York: Routledge.
    • Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
    • Sanford Ikeda; Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism London: Routledge 1997

    Sources and notes[edit]

    1. ^(NB)
      • Schiller, Bradley. The Micro Economy Today, McGraw-Hill/Irwin, 2010, p. 15. "Mixed economy - An economy that uses both market signals and government directives to allocate goods and resources." This follows immediately from a discussion on command economies and market mechanism.
      • Stilwell, Frank. Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas, 2nd ed., Oxford University Press. 2006. Stilwell
      • Hendricks, Jean and Gaoreth D. Myles. Intermediate Public Economics, The MIT Press, 2006, p. 4 "the mixed economy where individual decisions are respected but the government attempts to affect these through the policies it implements."
      • Gorman, Tom. The Complete Idiots Guide to Economics, Alpha Books (2003), p. 9" In a market economy, the private-sector businesses and consumers decide what they will produce and purchase, with little government intervention....In a command economy, also known as a planned economy, the government largely determines what is produced and in what amounts. In a mixed economy, both market forces and government decisions determine which goods and services are produced and how they are distributed."
    2. ^A variety of definitions for mixed economy.
    3. ^Brown, Douglas (November 11, 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794.  
    4. ^Pollin, Robert. 2007. '"Resurrection of the Rentier", book review of Andrew Glyn's Capitalism Unleashed:Finance, Globalization and Welfare. New Left Review 46:July–August. pp. 141–142. http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/NLR28008.pdf. "The underlying premise behind the mixed economy was straightforward. Keynes and like-minded reformers were not willing to give up on capitalism, and n particular, two of its basic features: that ownership and control of the economy’s means of production would remain primarily in the hands of private capitalists; and that most economic activity would be guided by ‘market forces’, that is, the dynamic combination of material self-seeking and competition. More specifically, the driving force of the mixed economy, as with free-market capitalism, should continue to be capitalists trying to make as much profit as they can. At the same time, Keynes was clear that in maintaining a profit-driven marketplace, it was also imperative to introduce policy interventions to counteract capitalism’s inherent tendencies—demonstrated to devastating effect during the 1930s calamity—toward financial breakdowns, depressions, and mass unemployment. Keynes’s framework also showed how full employment and social welfare interventions could be justified not simply on grounds of social uplift, but could also promote the stability of capitalism."
    5. ^Rees, Merlyn (1973). The Public Sector in the Mixed Economy. Bratsford. p. 240. ISBN 978-0713413724. 
    6. ^Craig, Edward (June 1998). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Volume 8. Routledge. p. 827. ISBN 978-0415187138.  
    7. ^"social democracy". Jason P. Abbot. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Ed. R. J. Barry Jones. Taylor & Francis, 2001. 1410
    8. ^A variety of definitions for mixed economy.
    9. ^Brown, Douglas (November 11, 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794.  
    10. ^Brown, Douglas (November 11, 2011). Towards a Radical Democracy (Routledge Revivals): The Political Economy of the Budapest School. Routledge. pp. 10–11. ISBN 978-0415608794.  
    11. ^Reisman, David A. Theories of the Mixed Economy (Theories of the mixed economy). Pickering & Chatto Ltd. ISBN 1-85196-214-X. 
    12. ^Tawney, R. H. (1964). Equality. London: Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-04-323014-8. 
    13. ^Crosland, A. (1977). The Future of socialism. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-8371-9586-1. 
    14. ^Gardner, Martin. Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener St. Martin's Press (1991), p. 126
    15. ^Vuong, Quan-Hoang. Financial Markets in Vietnam's Transition Economy: Facts, Insights, Implications.ISBN 978-3-639-23383-4, VDM Verlag, Feb. 2010, 66123 Saarbrücken, Germany.
    16. ^John W. Houck; Oliver F. Williams (1984). Catholic social teaching and the United States economy: working papers for a bishops' pastoral. University Press of America. pp. 132–133. 
    17. ^Miller 1998, p. 827: "In the second, mainly post-war, phase, social democrats came to believe that their ideals and values could be achieved by reforming capitalism rather than abolishing it. They favored a mixed economy in which most industries would be privately owned, with only a small number of utilities and other essential services in public ownership."
    18. ^The Political Economy of Fascism, by Gupta, Dipankar. 1977. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 12, No. 25 (Jun. 18, 1977), pp. 987-992
    19. ^Feasible Socialism: Market or Plan – Or Both: http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Feassoc.html
    20. ^Steger, Manfred B. The Quest for Evolutionary Socialism: Eduard Bernstein And Social Democracy. Cambridge, England, UK; New York, New York, USA: Cambridge University Press, 1997. pg. 146.
    21. ^"Socialist Market Economic System". Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. June 25, 2004. Retrieved February 8, 2018.  
    22. ^Pollin, Robert. 2007. '"Resurrection of the Rentier", book review of Andrew Glyn's Capitalism Unleashed:Finance, Globalization and Welfare. New Left Review 46:July–August. pp. 141–142. http://www.peri.umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publication_types/NLR28008.pdf. "The underlying premise behind the mixed economy was straightforward. Keynes and like-minded reformers were not willing to give up on capitalism, and n particular, two of its basic features: that ownership and control of the economy’s means of production would remain primarily in the hands of private capitalists; and that most economic activity would be guided by ‘market forces’, that is, the dynamic combination of material self-seeking and competition. More specifically, the driving force of the mixed economy, as with free-market capitalism, should continue to be capitalists trying to make as much profit as they can. At the same time, Keynes was clear that in maintaining a profit-driven marketplace, it was also imperative to introduce policy interventions to counteract capitalism’s inherent tendencies—demonstrated to devastating effect during the 1930s calamity—toward financial breakdowns, depressions, and mass unemployment. Keynes’s framework also showed how full employment and social welfare interventions could be justified not simply on grounds of social uplift, but could also promote the stability of capitalism."
    23. ^U.S. Economy - Basic Conditions & Resources. U.S. Diplomatic Mission to Germany. "The United States is said to have a mixed economy because privately owned businesses and government both play important roles." Accessed: October 24, 2011.
    24. ^(4)Outline of the U.S. Economy – (2)How the U.S. Economy Works. U.S. Embassy Information Resource Center. "As a result, the American economy is perhaps better described as a "mixed" economy, with government playing an important role along with private enterprise. Although Americans often disagree about exactly where to draw the line between their beliefs in both free enterprise and government management, the mixed economy they have developed has been remarkably successful." Accessed: October 24, 2011.
    25. ^Lahti, Arto. Globalization & the Nordic Success Model: Part II. 2010. Arto Lahti & Ventus Publishing ApS. p 60. ISBN 978-87-7681-550-9.
    26. ^Eds. Johan Fritzell, Bjorn Hvinden, Mikko Kautto, Jon Kvist, Hannu Uusitalo. Nordic Welfare States in the European Context. 2001. Routledge. p 3. ISBN 0-415-24161-8.
    27. ^ ab(Gardner)
    28. ^"The Progressive Movement". United States History. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
    29. ^The Making of Modern British Politics, Martin Pugh
    30. ^Global Political Economy, Robert O'Brien and Marc Williams
    31. ^*Gill: "By 1880 the United States of America had overtaken and surpassed the UK as industrial leader of the world.: (from Trade Wars Against America: A History of United States Trade and Monetary Policy Chapter 6 titled "America becomes Number 1" pg. 39–49 – published 1990 by Praeger Publishers in the USA – ISBN 0-275-93316-4)
      • Lind: "Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party of 1865–1932, by presiding over the industrialization of the United State, foreclosed the option that the United States would remain a rural society with an agrarian economy, as so many Jeffersonians had hoped." and "Hamiltonian side … the Federalists; the National Republicans; the Whigs, the Republicans; the Progressives." (from Hamilton's Republic Introduction pg. xiv–xv – published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA – ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
      • Lind: "During the nineteenth century the dominant school of American political economy was the "American School" of developmental economic nationalism. … The patron saint of the American School was Alexander Hamilton, whose Report on Manufactures (1791) had called for federal government activism in sponsoring infrastructure development and industrialization behind tariff walls that would keep out British manufactured goods...The American School, elaborated in the nineteenth century by economists like Henry Carey (who advised President Lincoln), inspired the "American System" of Henry Clay and the protectionist import-substitution policies of Lincoln and his successors in the Republican party well into the twentieth century." (from Hamilton's Republic Part III "The American School of National Economy" pg. 229–230 published 1997 by Free Press, Simon & Schuster division in the USA – ISBN 0-684-83160-0)
      • Richardson: "By 1865, the Republicans had developed a series of high tariffs and taxes that reflected the economic theories of Carey and Wayland and were designed to strengthen and benefit all parts of the American economy, raising the standard of living for everyone. As a Republican concluded..."Congress must shape its legislation as to incidentally aid all branches of industry, render the people prosperous, and enable them to pay taxes...for ordinary expenses of Government." (from "The Greatest Nation of the Earth" Chapter 4 titled "Directing the Legislation of the Country to the Improvement of the Country: Tariff and Tax Legislation" pg. 136-137 published 1997 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College in the USA – ISBN 0-674-36213-6)
      • Boritt: "Lincoln thus had the pleasure of signing into law much of the program he had worked for through the better part of his political life. And this, as Leornard P. Curry, the historian of the legislation has aptly written, amounted to a "blueprint for modern America." and "The man Lincoln selected for the sensitive position of Secretary of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate cariety on economics, one whom Joseph Dorfman could even describe as 'a good Hamiltonian, and a western progressive of the Lincoln stamp in everything from a tariff to a national bank.'" (from Lincoln and the Economics of the American Dream Chapter 14 titled "The Whig in the White House" pg. 196–197 published 1994 by University of Illinois Press in the USA – ISBN 0-252-06445-3
    32. ^Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0262182348.  
    33. ^Fan, He (January 9, 2015). "The long march to the mixed economy in China". East Asia Forum. East Asia Forum. Retrieved February 9, 2018. 
    34. ^Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treastise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0865976313.  
    35. ^Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treastise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0865976313.  
    36. ^Paul Mattick (1969). "The Limits of the Mixed Economy". Marxism.org. Retrieved 17 January 2014.  

    External Links

    1. Economic Planning in India Started After the Independence in 1947

    0 Replies to “Mixed Economy Illustration Essay”

    Lascia un Commento

    L'indirizzo email non verrà pubblicato. I campi obbligatori sono contrassegnati *