The European revolutions produced between 1789 and 1848 gave rise to a new type of state that historians call "liberal". The political philosophy that sustained these regimes is the so-called "liberalism", which in the mid-nineteenth century had a dual aspect: political and economic. Liberalism implies the respect to the citizen and individual liberties protected, in a general way, on an inviolable constitution that reflects the rights and duties of citizens and rulers; separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers to avoid any abuse of power, and the right to vote. Along with this political liberalism, the bourgeois state of the nineteenth century is also based on economic liberalism: a set of theories and practices at the service of the upper bourgeoisie and which, to a large extent, were a consequence of the industrial revolution. From the point of view of practice, economic liberalism meant the non-intervention of the state in social, financial and business issues. From here, and based on the experiences that we live in our countries, I propose this question. Thanks in advance for your responses.
Economic liberalism differs from political liberalism, in different degrees in each of the countries, so it is not possible, it seems to me, to make generalizations about this.
Hi,
Liberalism in economic system cannot be separated from liberalism in political aspect. At least, politics causes/creates a certain type of economic system.
I think is very difficult to imagine a country with the economy on one side and the institutionality on the other. The institutionality is the consolidation of politics in a formal and informal system, that is in the form of law and in the daily activity of citizens. In a country with multipartidism it could be difficult since left and right take a turn each time in power, but it doesn mean that the institutionality of the country change with the same speed, to change the laws and the mind of the citizens is a long run process, not a medium run issue as party elections. So you could have a country that name himself socialist, but you have to go to the core of the laws and the behaviour of the citizens to truly understand is nature, very distant sometimes of the political discourse. So to answer your question, yes i think that the economic system is ruled by the institutionalization of the politics, that is not the same as the political discourse.
Liberalism is a societal approach, which aims at human self-responsibility, i.e. the individual transition from 'outer' (group) control to ethical self-regulation. Modern liberalism implies a small state (law and order), free markets (demand driven) and social welfare policy (for basic life risks); the reduction of liberal thought to (total) economism is by no means 'liberal', but serves the political interest of economic rentier groups, who want to enjoy their privileges and monopolies.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRef2_aRmII
liberalism is a economic system that is endorsed by societal political system. so both must be linked for smooth functioning
Economic liberalism differs from political liberalism, in different degrees in each of the countries, so it is not possible, it seems to me, to make generalizations about this.
'Liberal' ideology via balance of 'Social', 'Economic' & 'Political' values promote population at large in 'Democracy'
'India' is Liberal democracy under principles
It all depends on what is behind the concept of economic liberalism. If we look at what is happening in China then the market is compatible with the Maoist bureaucratic dictatorship. This is also true for Saudi Arabia. and for other countries. There is therefore no automatic and necessary link between the freedom of capital, goods, entrepreneurship and political freedoms. An important point is that of property rights. Without these rights there is no economic liberalism possible.
¿Crees que un sistema de liberalismo económico debe estar necesariamente vinculado a un sistema institucional de liberalismo político?
El Liberalismo Político apunta a las libertades individuales y en cuanto a sociedad en conjunto, se refiere a libertades que debemos tener en modo recíproco, para eso se crearon los textos constitucionales para garantizar el derecho a la propiedad, a la libre empresa, los derechos humanos entre otros. En cambio, el Liberalismo Económico propone reglas de competencia en el mercado en el que oferta y demanda sean "la mano invisible" del juego económico, los medios de producción y los modos de producción no están disponibles para todos por igual...así que el bienestar social no se toca por ningún lado en este último. Por lo tanto no necesariamente están relacionados.
Not necessarily are economic and political liberalism connected. Free market on one hand, freedom of thought, speech, political expression, individual liberties, on the other hand. Ideally they should coexist, but in practice this does not always happen.
There is the misconception that democracy creates freedom, when in fact it is freedom that creates democracy.
And expanding production and trade (commercialism) is the material creation of freedom.
As more and more things become invented, created, and available to own, do and to choose from, governance and rules and regulations have less-and-less of an impact on daily life.
In productive periods of history we are not interested in what government is doing, we are more concerned with what new gadgets are going on sale at Walmart.
As we become a society of manufacturers and traders we must become tolerant of the other person's looks, accent, and religion.
Tolerance (liberties) emerges, not as a result of education or enlightenment, but as a concomitant byproduct of trade.
Which the intellectuals later invent philosophies to justify.
Liberalism and toleration is merely the prevailing political attitude of the merchant class.
All modern political REVOLUTIONS follow upon the heels of production and trade. First with Britain's Glorious Revolution of 1688 ... the American revolution of 1776 ... the French who waivered back and forth between autocracy and democracy for a half-century before the democratic commercial state consolidates its gains.
Right now Russia and China are moving in the same democratic direction and for the same reasons.
The Theory of Dual Morality explains that as commercialism takes hold in any culture, its moral outlook moves from hierarchical and traditional, to more horizontal, liberal, and flexible.
So I answer your question in the affirmative:
YES - a system of economic liberalism must necessarily be linked to an institutional system of political liberalism?
But the economic liberalism comes first --- political liberalism comes later.
If we assume that the term 'political liberalism' is associated with the term 'liberal democracy', then economic liberalism does not necessarily have to be correlated with it. To my mind, a good example here can be Singapore, which e.g. in the opinion of the influential Democracy Index is a democratic state. However, Singapore is not a liberal democracy. To make the long story short, in a typical liberal democracy the emphasis is on civil rights. Singapore, on the other hand, does not allow civil rights to override duties. The latter is just as important, if not more important. Paraphrasing the words of John F. Kennedy, Singapore is primarily interested in what citizens can do for their country, not what the country can do for them. This approach means that Singapore is often perceived as a state where civil rights are insufficiently protected. On the other hand, Singapore is considered a country of economic liberalism which in combination with great respect for duties and good governance is at the heart of Singapore's rapid build-up of prosperity. However, thanks to the fact that citizens do a lot for their country, Singapore can do a lot for them. Namely, these days Singapore has a very well-developed social policy.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Economics