Mixed economy

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 no single definition of a mixed economy,[2] but rather two major definitions. The first of these definitions refers to a mixture of markets with state interventionism, referring to capitalist market 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, the term "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.[4] In such a system, markets are subject to varying degrees of regulatory control and governments wield indirect macroeconomic influence through fiscal and monetary policies with a view to counteracting capitalism's history of boom/bust cycles, unemployment and income disparities. In this framework, varying degrees of public utilities and essential services operate under public ownership and state activity is often limited to providing public goods and universal civic requirements - such as healthcare, physical infrastructure and management of public lands.[4][5]

In reference to post-World War II Western European economic models as championed by Christian democrats and social democrats, the mixed economy is 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 evidenced by the implementation of the welfare state.[7]

As an economic ideal, mixed economies are supported by people of various political persuasions, typically centre-left and centre-right, such as social democrats[8] or Christian democrats.


There is not only one definition of a mixed economy.[9] 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.[10] 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.[11]


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.[12] Supporters of the mixed economy, including R. H. Tawney,[13] Anthony Crosland[14] 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".[15]

Political philosophy

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.[16]

Catholic social teaching

Jesuit author David Hollenbach, S.J. has argued that Catholic social teaching calls for a "new form" of mixed economy. He refers back to Pope Pius XI's statement that government "should supply help to the members of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them".[17] Hollenbach writes that a socially just mixed economy involves labour, management and the state working together through a pluralistic system that distributes economic power widely.[18]

However, subsequent scholars have noted that conceiving of subsidiarity as a "top-down, government-driven political exercise" requires a selective reading of 1960s encyclicals. A more comprehensive reading of Catholic social teaching suggests a conceptualization of subsidiarity as a "bottom-up concept" that is "rooted in recognition of a common humanity, not in the political equivalent of noblese oblige".[19]

European social democracy

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.[20] 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 labour)[21] with a qualitatively different socialist economic system.[22][23][24]


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 labour 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.[25]


"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.[26]

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.[27]

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.[28]

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.


Mix of free markets and state intervention

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.[29] 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.[30][31] 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.[32][33]

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.[34]

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.[35] 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 Kingdom (though not the British Empire) by 1880.[36][37][38]

Mix of private and public enterprise

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.[39]

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.[40]

Mix of markets and economic planning

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 can include capitalist economies with indicative macroeconomic planning policies and socialist 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.[34]

Hungary inaugurated the New Economic Mechanism reforms in 1968 that introduced market processes into its planned economy. Under this system, firms were still publicly-owned but not subject to physical production targets and output quotas specified by a national plan. Firms were attached to state ministries which had the power to merge, dissolve and reorganize them, and which established the firm's operating sector. Enterprises had to acquire their inputs and sell their outputs in markets, eventually eroding away at the Soviet-style planned economy.

In 2010 Australian economist John Quiggin wrote, "The experience of the twentieth century suggests that a mixed economy will outperform both central planning and laissez-faire. The real question for policy debates is one of determining the appropriate mix, and the way in which the public and private sectors should interact." [41]


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.[42] 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.[43]

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.[44]

See also

Sources and notes

  1. ^ See:
    • 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 J. B. (2006). Political Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas (2 ed.). Oxford University Press. ISBN 9780195551273. Retrieved 12 November 2018.
    • 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 Idiot's 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. The apolitical definition of 'mixed economy' generally refers to the mix of public and private ownership forms...Here 'mixed economy' itself does not specify a political form. it means an economy characterized by a combination of public and private ownership as well as planning and markets
  4. ^ a b 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 in 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. 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.
  7. ^ O'Hara, Phillip Anthony, ed. (1999). "Welfare state". Encyclopedia of Political Economy. Routledge. p. 1245. ISBN 0-415-24187-1.
  8. ^ "social democracy". Jason P. Abbot. Routledge Encyclopedia of International Political Economy. Ed. R. J. Barry Jones. Taylor & Francis, 2001. 1410
  9. ^ A variety of definitions for mixed economy.
  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. There are in general two broad yet distinguishable definitions of 'mixed economy': a political definition and an apolitical definition. The political definition refers to the degree of state intervention in what is basically a market economy. Thus this definition 'portray[s] the phenomenon in terms of state encroaching upon the market and thereby suggest[s] that market is the natural or preferable mechanism...The political definition of 'mixed economy' precludes extending it to non-capitalist systems
  11. ^ 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. The apolitical definition of 'mixed economy' generally refers to the mix of public and private ownership forms...Here 'mixed economy' itself does not specify a political form. it means an economy characterized by a combination of public and private ownership as well as planning and markets
  12. ^ Reisman, David A. Theories of the Mixed Economy (Theories of the mixed economy). Pickering & Chatto Ltd. ISBN 1-85196-214-X.
  13. ^ Tawney, R. H. (1964). Equality. London: Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-04-323014-8.
  14. ^ Crosland, A. (1977). The Future of socialism. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. ISBN 0-8371-9586-1.
  15. ^ Gardner, Martin. Whys of a Philosophical Scrivener St. Martin's Press (1991), p. 126
  16. ^ 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.
  17. ^ Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, para 79, published 15 May 1931, accessed 12 August 2018; the papal text refers to "every social activity", not only to government.
  18. ^ David Hollenbach, S.J. (1984). "Unemployment and Jobs: A Theological and Ethical Perspective". In Houck, John; Williams, Oliver (eds.). Catholic social teaching and the United States economy: working papers for a bishops' pastoral. University Press of America. pp. 132–133.
  19. ^ Denis O'Brien (2014). "Subsidiarity and Solidarity". In Booth, Phillip (ed.). Catholic social teaching and the market economy. The Institute of Economic Affairs. p. 454.
  20. ^ Adams 1993, pp. 102-103: "The emergence of social democracy was partly a result of the Cold War. People argued that if the Stalinist Soviet empire, where the state controlled everything, showed socialism in action, then socialism was not worth having. [...] The consensus policies of a mixed and managed economy and the welfare state, developed by the post-war Labour government, seemed in themselves to provide a basis for a viable socialism that would combine prosperity and freedom with social justice and the possibility of a full life for everyone. They could be seen as a compromise between socialism and capitalism."
  21. ^ Weisskopf 1992, p. 10: "Thus social democrats do not try to do away with either the market or private property ownership; instead, they attempt to create conditions in which the operation of a capitalist market economy will lead to more egalitarian outcomes and encourage more democratic and more solidaristic practices than would a more conventional capitalist system."
  22. ^ 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."
  23. ^ Jones 2001, p. 1410: "In addition, particularly since World War II, distinctions have sometimes been made between social democrats and socialists on the basis that the former have accepted the permanence of the mixed economy and have abandoned the idea of replacing the capitalist system with a qualitatively different socialist society."
  24. ^ Heywood 2012, pp. 125–128: "As an ideological stance, social democracy took shape around the mid-twentieth century, resulting from the tendency among western socialist parties not only to adopt parliamentary strategies, but also to revise their socialist goals. In particular, they abandoned the goal of abolishing capitalism and sought instead to reform or ‘humanize’ it. Social democracy therefore came to stand for a broad balance between the market economy, on the one hand, and state intervention, on the other."
  25. ^ The Political Economy of Fascism, by Gupta, Dipankar. 1977. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 12, No. 25 (Jun. 18, 1977), pp. 987-992
  26. ^ Feasible Socialism: Market or Plan – Or Both: http://www.whatnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Feassoc.html
  27. ^ 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.
  28. ^ "Socialist Market Economic System". Ministry of Commerce of the People's Republic of China. June 25, 2004. Retrieved February 8, 2018. The development of the economic system with public ownership playing a dominant role and diverse forms of ownership developing side by side is a basic characteristic of the socialist economic system at the preliminary stage. This is decided by the quality of socialism and the national situation in preliminary stage: first, China, as a socialist country, should persist in public ownership as the base of the socialist economy; second, China, as in its preliminary stage, should develop diverse forms of ownership on condition that the public ownership plays a dominant role
  29. ^ 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."
  30. ^ 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.
  31. ^ (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.
  32. ^ Lahti, Arto. Globalization & the Nordic Success Model: Part II. 2010. Arto Lahti & Ventus Publishing ApS. p 60. ISBN 978-87-7681-550-9.
  33. ^ 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.
  34. ^ a b (Gardner)
  35. ^ "The Progressive Movement". United States History. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
  36. ^ The Making of Modern British Politics, Martin Pugh
  37. ^ Global Political Economy, Robert O'Brien and Marc Williams
  38. ^ *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, elabourated 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
  39. ^ Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr. Comparative Economics in a Transforming World Economy. MIT Press. p. 187. ISBN 978-0262182348. After World War II a wave of nationalizations occurred, affecting the Bank of France, the four largest commercial banks, the four leading groups of insurance companies, all electric power and gas producers, the coal mining industry, Air France, and the Renault automobile company (the last specifically because of wartime collabouration with the Nazis by its owner). Until 1981 no other firms were nationalized, although occasionally new public enterprises were created from scratch or the government bought part of ownership, as it did with Dassault Aircraft in 1978. Until 1986 none of these industries were denationalized.
  40. ^ Fan, He (January 9, 2015). "The long march to the mixed economy in China". East Asia Forum. East Asia Forum. Retrieved February 9, 2018.
  41. ^ Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still Walk among Us, John Quiggin, Princeton University Press, 2010, page 78. The author made this statement in his chapter which is sharply critical of the strong version of the "The Efficient Market Hypothesis," esp. as it pertains to financial markets.
  42. ^ Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treastise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0865976313. There is no mixture of the two systems possible or thinkable; there is no such thing as a mixed economy, a system that would be in part capitalistic and in part socialist.
  43. ^ Mises, Ludwig. Human Action: A Treastise on Economics. Liberty Fund. p. 259. ISBN 978-0865976313. The fact that the state or municipalities own and operate some plants does not alter the characteristic features of a market economy. These publicly owned and operated enterprises are subject to the sovereignty of the market. They must fit themselves, as buyers of raw materials, equipment, and labour, and as sellers of goods and services, into the scheme of the market economy. They are subject to the laws of the market and thereby depend on the consumers who may or may not patronize them. They must strive for profits, or at least, to avoid losses.
  44. ^ Paul Mattick (1969). "The Limits of the Mixed Economy". Marxism.org. Retrieved 17 January 2014. To be sure, 'orthodox Marxism' maintains that the mixed economy is still the capitalism of old, just as 'orthodox' bourgeois theory insists that the mixed economy is a camouflaged form of socialism. Generally, however, both the state-capitalist and mixed economies are recognized as economic systems adhering to the principle of progress by way of capital accumulation.

Further reading

  • Buchanan, James M. (1986) Liberty, Market and State: Political Economy in the 1980s New York University Press.
  • Buckwitz, George D. (1991) America’s Welfare State: From Roosevelt to Reagan. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
  • Derthick, Martha and Paul J. Quirk (1985) The Politics of Deregulation. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
  • Gross, Kyle B. (1991) The Politics of State Expansion: War, State and Society in Twentieth-Century Britain. New York: Routledge.
  • 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
  • Sanford Ikeda; Dynamics of the Mixed Economy: Toward a Theory of Interventionism London: Routledge 1997
11th Congress of the Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks)

The 11th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was held during 27 March – 2 April 1922 in Moscow. The congress was attended by 522 with a casting vote alongside 165 with consultative vote, and elected the 11th Central Committee.

The main purpose of the congress was to review the results of the New Economic Policy that was decided in the 10th Congress. As a result, the congress concluded that the capitalist mixed economy in the Soviet Union would need to come to an end. This led them to resolve that the trade unions were to be given more power in both the economy and politics.During the 11th Congress, Leon Trotsky attacked Sergey Ivanovich Gusev and Mikhail Frunze over Red Army policies, specifically matters of discipline, political doctrine, and relations with the peasantry. Trotsky lost the debate, which resulted in a discrediting of civilian critics of the Red Army. As a result, civilians were increasingly locked out of military-related resolutions following the 11th Congress.The most far-reaching event was the appointment of Joseph Stalin as the party's first General Secretary. Bukharin and Rykov were promoted to the Politburo.

Bhandara district

Bhandara District is an administrative district in the state of Maharashtra in India. The district headquarters are located at Bhandara. The district occupies an area of 4087 km² and has a population of 1,200,334 (605,520 males and 594,814 females), of which 19.48% are urban as of 2011. It is known as the "District of Lakes". Bhandara has a mixed economy with agriculture, industries and forest resources. Bhandara is known for its large production of rice. Tumsar, a tahsil town, is a noted rice market. Bhandara town is also known as "Brass City" owing to the presence of a large brass products industry. Bhandara has several tourist destinations, like Ambagad Fort, Brahmi, Chinchgad, and Dighodi.

The district is also known for the Ordnance Factory Bhandara of the Ordnance Factories Board, which manufactures products for the Indian Armed Forces. It is located on an estate which is commonly known as Jawaharnagar colony. This is the only Kendriya Vidyalaya in the Bhandara district. There is one Navodaya Vidyalaya (brain child of Late Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi) in Navegoan Bandh. Ashok Leyland, a Hinduja Group Company, has a production facility at Gadegaon near Bhandara. Sunflag Iron Steel company and Shivmangal Ispat Pvt. Ltd. are other major industrial undertakings in the district.


Blatcherism is a term formed as a portmanteau of the names of two British politicians, Tony Blair (Labour Party) and Margaret Thatcher (Conservative Party). It has been used by critics of monetarism and economic liberalism to refer to the thesis that a policy model of the Thatcher government, distinct from one-nation conservatism, was resurrected when Blair came to power. It echoed "Butskellism", frequently used to describe the post-war consensus on a mixed economy with moderate state intervention to promote social goals, particularly in education and health.

Editorial comment by Red Pepper before the 1997 general election that brought Blair to power may be the earliest usage. Another early sighting of this term was in 2001, used by Brian Lee Crowley, a Canadian commentator. The term has also been used, for example, by the journalist Alexander Cockburn in preference to Blairism.

Corporate sector of Pakistan

The Corporate sector of Pakistan (otherwise attributed as the Corporatization; or/ simply referred to as the Pakistan Inc.) is an elite business sector expanded in financial cities of Pakistan, and a policy measure programme in the economic period of Pakistan. This programme is also regarded as "Pakistan Inc.", which is a drive common term used by the mass-media of Pakistan to refer to the corporate sector of the nation. This policy measure programme was first conceived, envisioned and implemented then-Finance Minister Ghulam Ishaq Khan and President General Zia-ul-Haq in order to lay the foundation of Western styled corporate sector. President Zia-ul-Haq issued the decree, the Companies Ordinance No. 1984, in 1984 that legally allows a variety of formations in the mixed economy of Pakistan.

The programme was started on 8 October 1984 in a vision to promote Western-styled corporate sector, and business activities development in Pakistan. The corporate sector came in direct response to nationalization programme of executed Prime Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto and the Pakistan Peoples Party to promote . This programme was integrated in Privatization programme of Prime minister Nawaz Sharif in 1990 who gave free hand to private sector to expand the economical activities in the country. The corporate sector remained to expand in Prime minister Benazir Bhutto's government who promoted the nationalization and privatization at once. In 2004, in a programme initiated by Prime minister Shaukat Aziz, the corporate sector further enhanced and matured; it had built a strong and sizeable sector in the financial hubs of the country.

Under Aziz, many of state-owned megacorporations along with private sector had been registered in stock exchanges of the country in order to promote business competition in the country.

Decentralized planning (economics)

A decentralized-planned economy or decentrally-planned economy (occasionally called horizontally-planned economy due to its horizontalism) is a type of planned economy in which the investment and allocation of consumer and capital goods is explicate accordingly to an economy-wide plan built and operatively coordinated through a distributed network of disparate economic agents or even production units itself. Decentralized planning is usually held in contrast to centralized planning, in particular the Soviet Union's command economy, where economic information is aggregated and used to formulate a plan for production, investment and resource allocation by a single central authority. Decentralised planning can take shape both in the context of a mixed economy as well as in a post-capitalist economic system.

This form of economic planning implies some process of democratic and participatory decision-making within the economy and within firms itself in the form of industrial democracy. Computer-based forms of democratic economic planning and coordination between economic enterprises have also been proposed by various computer scientists and radical economists. Proponents present decentralized and participatory economic planning as an alternative to market socialism for a post-capitalist society.Decentralized-planning has been proposed as a basis for socialism and has been variously advocated by democratic socialists, council communists and anarchists who advocate a non-market form of socialism, in total rejection of Soviet-type central economic planning. Some writers such as Robin Cox have argued that decentralised planning allows for a spontaneously self-regulating system of stock control (relying solely on calculation in kind) to come about and that in turn decisively overcomes the objections raised by the economic calculation argument that any large scale economy must necessarily resort to a system of market prices.

Economic system

An economic system (also economic order) is a system of production, resource allocation and distribution of goods and services within a society or a given geographic area. It includes the combination of the various institutions, agencies, entities, decision-making processes and patterns of consumption that comprise the economic structure of a given community. As such, an economic system is a type of social system. The mode of production is a related concept. All economic systems have three basic questions to ask: what to produce, how to produce and in what quantities and who receives the output of production.

The study of economic systems includes how these various agencies and institutions are linked to one another, how information flows between them and the social relations within the system (including property rights and the structure of management). The analysis of economic systems traditionally focused on the dichotomies and comparisons between market economies and planned economies and on the distinctions between capitalism and socialism. Subsequently, the categorization of economic systems expanded to include other topics and models that do not conform to the traditional dichotomy. Today the dominant form of economic organization at the world level is based on market-oriented mixed economies.

Economy of Utah

Utah has a largely mixed economy covering industries like tourism, mining, agriculture, manufacturing, information technology, finance, and petroleum production. The majority of Utah's gross state product is produced along the Wasatch Front, containing the state capital Salt Lake City.

According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis the gross stated product of Utah in 2010 was 82 billion, just over half a percent of the total United States GDP of $14.55 trillion for the same year. The per capita personal income was $36,457 in 2005. Major industries of Utah include: coal mining, cattle ranching, salt production, and government services.

According to the 2007 State New Economy Index, Utah is ranked the top state in the nation for Economic Dynamism, determined by,

"The degree to which state economies are knowledge-based, globalized, entrepreneurial, information technology-driven, and innovation-based."

In eastern Utah petroleum production is a major industry. Near Salt Lake City, petroleum refining is done by a number of oil companies. In central Utah, coal production accounts for much of the mining activity.

Utah collects personal income tax at a single rate of 5%, but provides tax credits to low and middle income taxpayers to provide a progressive tax system. The state sales tax has a base rate of 4.65 percent, with cities and counties levying additional local sales taxes that vary among the municipalities. Property taxes are assessed and collected locally. Utah does not charge intangible property taxes and does not impose an inheritance tax.

As of December 2015, Utah's unemployment rate sat at 3.5%, and ranked 7th out of the 50 states and the District of Columbia.

Liberal socialism

Liberal socialism is a socialist political philosophy that incorporates liberal principles. Liberal socialism does not have the goal of completely abolishing capitalism and replacing it with socialism, but it instead supports a mixed economy that includes both private property and social ownership in capital goods. Although liberal socialism unequivocally favors a market-based economy, it identifies legalistic and artificial monopolies to be the fault of capitalism and opposes an entirely unregulated economy. It considers both liberty and equality to be compatible and mutually dependent on each other.Principles that can be described as liberal socialist are based on the works of philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Eduard Bernstein, John Dewey, Carlo Rosselli, Norberto Bobbio, Chantal Mouffe and Karl Polanyi. Other important liberal socialist figures include Guido Calogero, Piero Gobetti, Leonard Hobhouse, John Maynard Keynes and R. H. Tawney. To Polanyi, liberal socialism's goal was overcoming exploitative aspects of capitalism by expropriation of landlords and opening to all the opportunity to own land. Liberal socialism has been particularly prominent in British and Italian politics.Liberal socialism's seminal ideas can be traced to John Stuart Mill, who theorised that capitalist societies should experience a gradual process of socialisation through worker-controlled enterprises, coexisting with private enterprises. Mill rejected centralised models of socialism that could discourage competition and creativity, but he argued that representation is essential in a free government and democracy could not subsist if economic opportunities were not well distributed, therefore conceiving democracy not just as form of representative government, but as an entire social organisation.

List of companies of Albania

Albania's transition from a socialist centrally planned economy to a capitalist mixed economy has been largely successful. "Formal non-agricultural employment in the private sector more than doubled between 1999 and 2013," notes the World Bank, with much of this expansion powered by foreign investment.For further information on the types of business entities in this country and their abbreviations, see Business entities in Albania.

List of companies of Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina is a country in Southeastern Europe located on the Balkan Peninsula. Sarajevo is the capital and largest city. Bosnia faces the dual-problem of rebuilding a war-torn country and introducing transitional liberal market reforms to its formerly mixed economy. One legacy of the previous era is a strong industry; under former republic president Džemal Bijedić and SFRY President Josip Broz Tito, metal industries were promoted in the republic, resulting in the development of a large share of Yugoslavia's plants; S.R. Bosnia and Herzegovina had a very strong industrial export oriented economy in the 1970s and 1980s, with large scale exports worth millions of US$.

For further information on the types of business entities in this country and their abbreviations, see "Business entities in Bosnia and Herzegovina".

List of companies of Jamaica

Jamaica is an island country situated in the Caribbean Sea, consisting of the third-largest island of the Greater Antilles. Jamaica is a mixed economy with both state enterprises and private sector businesses. Major sectors of the Jamaican economy include agriculture, mining, manufacturing, tourism, and financial and insurance services. Tourism and mining are the leading earners of foreign exchange. Half the Jamaican economy relies on services, with half of its income coming from services such as tourism. An estimated 1.3 million foreign tourists visit Jamaica every year.

Market economy

A market economy is an economic system in which the decisions regarding investment, production and distribution are guided by the price signals created by the forces of supply and demand. The major characteristic of a market economy is the existence of factor markets that play a dominant role in the allocation of capital and the factors of production.Market economies range from minimally regulated free market and laissez-faire systems where state activity is restricted to providing public goods and services and safeguarding private ownership, to interventionist forms where the government plays an active role in correcting market failures and promoting social welfare. State-directed or dirigist economies are those where the state plays a directive role in guiding the overall development of the market through industrial policies or indicative planning—which guides yet does does substitute the market for economic planning—a form sometimes referred to as a mixed economy.Market economies are contrasted with planned economies where investment and production decisions are embodied in an integrated economy-wide economic plan and economy’s means of production are owned and operated by a single organizational body.

New Economic Policy

The New Economic Policy (NEP) (Russian: новая экономическая политика, novaya ekonomicheskaya politika) was an economic policy of Soviet Russia proposed by Vladimir Lenin in 1921 as a temporary expedient. Lenin characterized the NEP in 1922 as an economic system that would include "a free market and capitalism, both subject to state control", while socialized state enterprises would operate on "a profit basis".The NEP represented a more market-oriented economic policy (deemed necessary after the Russian Civil War of 1918 to 1922) to foster the economy of the country, which had suffered severely since 1914. The Soviet authorities partially revoked the complete nationalization of industry (established during the period of War Communism of 1918 to 1921) and introduced a system of mixed economy which allowed private individuals to own small enterprises, while the state continued to control banks, foreign trade, and large industries. In addition, the NEP abolished prodrazvyorstka (forced grain-requisition) and introduced prodnalog: a tax on farmers, payable in the form of raw agricultural product. The Bolshevik government adopted the NEP in the course of the 10th Congress of the All-Russian Communist Party (March 1921) and promulgated it by a decree on 21 March 1921: "On the Replacement of Prodrazvyorstka by Prodnalog". Further decrees refined the policy. Other policies included monetary reform (1922–1924) and the attraction of foreign capital.

The NEP policy created a new category of people called NEPmen (нэпманы) (nouveau riches). Joseph Stalin abolished the NEP in 1928.

Nordic model

The Nordic model refers to the economic and social policies common to the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Norway, Iceland, Greenland, the Faroe Islands, and Sweden). This includes a comprehensive welfare state and collective bargaining at the national level with a high percentage of the workforce unionised while being based on the economic foundations of free market capitalism. The Nordic model began to earn attention after World War II.The Scandinavian countries were all monarchies, with Finland and Iceland becoming republics in the 20th century. Currently, the Nordic countries have been described as being highly democratic. Although there are significant differences among the Nordic countries, they all share some common traits. These include support for a universalist welfare state aimed specifically at enhancing individual autonomy and promoting social mobility; a corporatist system involving a tripartite arrangement where representatives of labour and employers negotiate wages and labour market policy mediated by the government; and a commitment to private ownership (with some caveats), a mixed economy and free trade.Each of the Nordic countries has its own economic and social models, sometimes with large differences from its neighbours. As of 2018, all of the Nordic countries rank highly on the Inequality-adjusted HDI and the Global Peace Index. In 2019, all five of the Nordic countries ranked in the top 10 on the World Happiness Report.

Social welfare model

A social welfare model is a system of social welfare provision and its accompanying value system. It usually involves social policies that affect the welfare of a country's citizens within the framework of a market or mixed economy.

Socialist-oriented market economy

The socialist-oriented market economy (Vietnamese: Kinh tế thị trường theo định hướng xã hội chủ nghĩa) is the official title given to the current economic system in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. It is described as a multi-sectoral market economy where the state sector plays a decisive role in directing economic development, with the eventual long-term goal of developing socialism.The socialist-oriented market economy is a product of the Đổi Mới economic reforms which led to the replacement of the centrally-planned economy with a market-based mixed economy based on state-owned industry. These reforms were undertaken to allow Vietnam to integrate with the global market economy.

Urbanisation in India

Urbanization in India began to accelerate after, due to the country's adoption of a mixed economy, which gave rise to the development of the private sector. Urbanisation is taking place at a faster rate in India. Population residing in urban areas in India, according to 1901 census, was 11.4%. This count increased to 28.53% according to 2001 census, and crossing 30% as per 2011 census, standing at 31.16%. In 2017, the numbers increased to 34%, according to The World Bank. According to a survey by UN State of the World Population report in 2007, by 2030, 40.76% of country's population is expected to reside in urban areas. As per World Bank, India, along with China, Indonesia, Nigeria, and the United States, will lead the world's urban population surge by 2050.Mumbai saw large scale rural-urban migration in the 20th century.[see main] Mumbai, in 2018, accommodates 22.1 million people, and is the largest metropolis by population in India, followed by Delhi with 28 million inhabitants. Witnessing the fastest rate of urbanisation in the world, as per 2011 census, Delhi's population rises by 4.1%, Mumbai's by 3.1% and Kolkata's by 2% as per 2011 census compared to 2001 census.

West Jordan, Utah

West Jordan is a city in Salt Lake County, Utah, United States. It is a rapidly growing suburb of Salt Lake City and has a mixed economy. According to the 2010 Census, the city had a population of 103,712, placing it as the fourth most populous in the state. The city occupies the southwest end of the Salt Lake Valley at an elevation of 4,330 feet (1,320 m). Named after the nearby Jordan River, the limits of the city begin on the river's western bank and end in the eastern foothills of the Oquirrh Mountains, where Kennecott Copper Mine, the world's largest man-made excavation is located.

Settled in the mid-19th century, the city has developed into its own regional center. As of 2012, the city has four major retail centers; with Jordan Landing being one of the largest mixed-use planned developments in the Intermountain West. Companies headquartered in West Jordan include Mountain America Credit Union, Lynco Sales & Service, SME Steel, and Cyprus Credit Union. The city has one major hospital, Jordan Valley Medical Center, and a campus of Salt Lake Community College, which is designed to become the main campus by 2020.

City landmarks include Gardner Village, established in 1850, and South Valley Regional Airport, formerly known as "Salt Lake Airport #2." The airport serves general aviation operations as well as a base for the 211th Aviation Regiment of the Utah Army National Guard flying Apache and Black Hawk helicopters. It is home to professional gamer Tyler Blevins and comedian Kevin Dougall.

Winnipeg Declaration

The Winnipeg Declaration (sometimes referred to as the Winnipeg Manifesto) was the programme adopted by the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF) in Canada to replace the Regina Manifesto. Its full name is the "1956 Winnipeg Declaration of Principles of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation" and it was adopted at the party's national convention held that year in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.