Commercial state: Difference between revisions
imported>Roger A. Lohmann (add minor phrase) |
imported>John Stephenson (categories) |
||
Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
Fenton, John H. 1966. Midwest politics. New York,: Holt Rinehart and Winston. | Fenton, John H. 1966. Midwest politics. New York,: Holt Rinehart and Winston. | ||
[[Category: Politics Workgroup]] | |||
[[Category: Economics Workgroup]] | |||
[[Category: CZ Live]] |
Revision as of 04:07, 6 August 2007
The commercial state concept is sometimes associated with Adam Ferguson's concept of civil society and refers to a political state devoted primarily to the promotion and advancement of commercial interests. The underlying idea can also be linked to the American School of Economics (and the legacy of the political and economic approach of Alexander Hamilton).
Several lines of thought and action (e.g. Mercantilism ) run from ancient Greek and Roman philosophy through Ferguson and Adam Smith. They can be traced through the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton and more recently Austrian economists such as Ludwig von Mises, Frederick Hayek. An essentially commercial view of the state has continued down to modern theorists including Milton Friedman and Murray Rothbard, who argue not only for a limited role for government, but that that residual role is heavily commercial. The modern U.S. Republican Party and Democratic Party in the U.S. both include significant factions of commercial state adherents at all levels, although commercial state rhetoric is usually much more evident in the former. (See, for example, discussions of Reaganomics in Ronald_Reagan and the U.S. Republican Party.)
Practical commercial state activities include governmental economic development efforts including encouraging plant relocations, tax rebates, zoning easements and assorted other incentives and concessions.
Numerous concepts in political science, such as John Fenton's (1966) distinction between policy-oriented states ( Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Dakota) and job-oriented states (Michigan, Illinois, Indiana and Ohio) reflect differences in the role of commercial interests in U.S. state governments (although one could argue that the differences Fenton saw may have been considerably mitigated - generally in the direction of the commercial state - in these midwestern states over the past 40 years.)
References
Fenton, John H. 1966. Midwest politics. New York,: Holt Rinehart and Winston.