ケネーの「経済表」

ブリューゲルの収穫者たち
目次に戻る 原ページ
Google
WWW 検索 cruel.org 検索

 重農主義体系を創始した文書は、フランソワ・ケネーの『経済表』(Tableau Économique) (1759) だ。もともと私的な文書として出回った印刷物だったけれど、ミラボー侯爵の『人類の友: 第六部』(L'ami des hommes: Pt. 6) (1760) で初めて刊行された。その後、ミラボー (1760, 1763), メルシエ・ド・ラ・リヴィエール (1767)、デュポン・ド・ヌムール (1767) と何度か改訂を経ている。

 以下の例は、ケネーの 1766 年論文 "Analyse de la formule arithmétique du Tableau Economique de la distribution des dépenses annuelles d'une Nation agricole" からきている。これは Journal de l'agriculture, du commerce et des finances で刊行された。紹介しているバージョンは Hans Brems (1986) から取った。

1. モデルの概要

 ケネーは三つのちがった階級を同定した:

  1. 「特権階級」(地主)
  2. 「生産的階級」(農民や農業労働者)
  3. 「無産階級」(職人や商人)

 この例でのモデルは、穀物と工芸品という二つの財を扱う。穀物は土地、労働、資本(ここでは家畜と種子)で生産される。工芸品の生産は、現地の穀物と、輸入した外国材料を原料として使う。登場人物は以下の 5 人:

  1. 「農民」: 穀物を生産、家畜と種子を所有、労働を雇って、地主に地代を払う。
  2. 「職人」: 工芸品を生産、地元の穀物と外国の財を原料に使う。
  3. 「労働者」: 農民のために働いて賃金を受け取る。
  4. 「商人」: 輸入した外国の財を売って、地元の穀物を買って輸出。
  5. 「地主」:土地を所有して、農民から地代を受け取る。

 毎年生きるために、この登場人物たちは以下の消費が必要だ:

  1. 農民: 穀物 150 + 工芸品 150
  2. 職人: 穀物 150 + 工芸品 150
  3. 労働者: 穀物 150 + 工芸品 150
  4. 商人: なし
  5. 地主: 穀物 300 + 工芸品 300

 地主は当然ながら、一番豪勢な暮らしをしている。商人はガイジンなので、ただの通りすがりだから、地元製品で養ってあげる必要はない。

 ケネー (1759, 1766a, 1766b) は、資本を表すのに「先行支出」(advances) と言うことばを使った。資本とはつまり、生産プロセスで以前に蓄積した資金から引き出される支出だ。かれは、その支出先に応じて、4 種類の資本を同定している。

  1. avances foncières (根本的/土地化された先行支出): 地主たちが土地に大して行う一回限りの投資、たとえば開墾、排水、柵の建設など
  2. avances souveraines (政府先行支出): 政府による一回限りの投資、たとえば道路や橋
  3. avances primitives (一次先行支出): 耐久生産財への投資、たとえば馬、牛、鋤など。「経済表」では avances originelles (原始的先行支出) とも呼ばれる。
  4. avances annuelles (年次先行支出): 労賃や消耗生産財、たとえば家畜飼料、種子などへの支出

 こうした先行支出のうち、一番重要なのは (3) と (4) で、ケネーが一番深く分析したのもこれらだった。ケネーの一次的先行支出と年次先行支出との区別はアダム・スミス (1776) に輸入されて「固定資本」「流通資本」になった。

 この例では、4つめの資本 avances annuelles 以外は考えないことにする。生産プロセスは二つある(穀物と工芸品)。どちらも、事前に蓄積した穀物を原料として必要とする。

To produce 1500 units of grain, the Farmer needs 300 units of grain to sow his field and feed his cattle. But he also needs to keep himself and his laborer alive during the course of the year. So, every year, he will retain 300 units of grain, 150 for himself and 150 for his laborer. Of course, both the Farmer and the Laborer have other needs, e.g. clothes, furniture etc. These crafts must be bought on the market with cash, but the Farmer can only acquire cash by selling his grain on the market. Thus, we shall assume that after the sale of the grain, the Farmer keeps $300 cash to pay for crafts -- $150 for himself and $150 for the Laborer. Thus, the Laborer's full wage in the course of the entire year is 150 grain + $150 cash. The Farmer's expenditure on himself is also 150 grain + $150 cash.

So, let us examine the expenditures and receipts of the Farmer. He produces 1500 units of grain, retains 600 units for internal use (avances annuelles = seed, cattle-feed, food for himself and Laborer) and places the remaining 900 units of grain on the market. The 900 grains converts into $900 cash on the market, of which $300 will be taken to buy crafts for himself and his Laborer, thereby leaving 600 left over. This $600 is the net product.

Let us now turn to the Artisan. To produce 750 units of crafts, he needs 300 units of grain as raw material and $150-worth of foreign inputs (e.g. imported cloth, etc.) He needs to buy both of these with cash -- the grain on the local grain market, the foreign inputs from the foreign merchant. But the Artisan also needs to live during the year. We shall assume he has the same consumption needs as the Farmer and the Laborer, i.e. 150 crafts + 150 grain. He can produce the crafts for himself (i.e. he retains 150 units of crafts for own-consumption), but the 150 grain needs to be acquired on the market. So, every year, the Artisan needs to buy a total of 450 units of grain on the market and $150-worth of inputs from the foreign merchant. Consequently he needs $600 in cash, which he must acquire by selling 600 units of crafts on the market. As his total output (750 crafts) is equal to his total expenditures (750 = 150 crafts + $600 cash), then the artisan produces no net product.

Now, let us turn to the proprietor class. The Landlord's sumptuous lifestyle requires 300 grains + 300 crafts which must be bought on the market. He thus has a need for $600 cash. He acquires this by charging the Farmer $600 rent for the year. Notice that, with his rent, the Landlord has just expropriated the entire net product of the Farmer.

The Merchant is the only loose end. We will just suppose that he brings $150-worth of foreign inputs (which he sells to the artisan) and then turns around and uses the cash to buy 150 units of local grain for export.

He needs to buy both of these with cash -- the grain on the local grain market, the foreign inputs from the foreign merchant. But, remember, the Artisan also needs to live. He can produce crafts for himself (he retains 150 units of crafts for own-consumption) and he needs to buy 150 units of corn on the market.

the grain on the market with cash

He also needs to retain 150 units of grain to pay his laborer during the year. That is not his full wage. The laborer still expects a further $150 in cash in order to buy crafts (e.g. clothes, furniture, etc.) for himself. However, we shall assume that the Farmer pays the laborer his $150 cash wage after the sale of the grain on the market.

Farmers

Suppose the farmer wishes to produce 1500 units of grain and the artisan wishes to produce 750 units of crafts. Their capital requirements are:

Farmer: 300 grain for seed and livestock + wages of laborer (150 grain + $150 cash)
Artisan: 300 grain as raw material for crafts + 150 units of foreign inputs.
Merchant: 150 units of grain for export.

which we can categorize into five people (or heads of household) - a farmer (F), a farmhand (H), a landlord (L), an artisan (A) and a foreign merchant (M). Only the Farmer and the Artisan produce goods -- the first produces grain, the second produces crafts. Following Quesnay, we have no prices in this system: a "unit" of grain and a "unit" of craft sells for a single livre (a unit of cash) in the market place. We look at his example from three sides: product side, flow of funds side and income side.

Consumption Requirements:

Farmer: 150 grain + 150 crafts
Laborer: 150 grain + 150 crafts
Artisan: 150 grain + 150 crafts
Landlord: 300 grain + 300 crafts
Livestock: 300 grain
Merchant: No requirement (needs 150 grain for export)

Production Requirements:

Production of grain requires inputs of labor, land and livestock
Production of crafts requires grain and foreign inputs as raw materials

It may seem that we do not need seed to produce grain, but let us assume that the "Livestock" means both animal capital and seed capital.

(1) Production Side

Only Farmer and Artisan produce. Some of their produce they retain internally, the rest they supply to market. What is supplied to market is exchanged for cash; what is retained internally does not command cash. At the market, their goods are bought up by different people.

In the following account, we trace the movement of grains and crafts. Note that that these numbers are not payments but merely how the actual output flows. Here is the account:

農業セクター: (output owned by Farmer)

  • Produces 1500 grain = 600 internal + 900 to market.
  • Of which:
  • Manufacturing Sector: (output owned by Artisan)

    Notes: In the agricultural sector the Farmer has to use part of his output to feed his livestock, a new category. Note also that the Merchant does not buy any of the Artisan's goods, but only the Farmer's grain. The Laborer is to receive 150 of the Farmer's output. This is only part of his wage (paid in kind). Another part will be paid in cash (as we shall see). The 300 units of grain going to the Landlord are not rent payments -- the Landlord just happens to buy the Farmer's grain on the market place.

    The production story is captured in the flow diagram 1 below.

    Fig. 1 - Production Flows

    (2) Flow of Funds Side

    Let us now turn to tracing the cash flow. Cash is exchanged for the goods on the market -- i.e. for agricultural goods and manufactured goods. We have not mentioned factors of production and their payment yet. So, we must now put them in place. There are three factors which trade for "cash": the labor of the farmhand (used by farmer and for which a cash wage is paid), the land of the landlord (used by farmer, and for which a cash rent is paid), and finally imported inputs from the foreign merchant (used by the artisan, which must be paid in cash). So, cash trades against both commodities and factors.

    Farmer:

    Landlord:

    Artisan:

    Farmhand:

    Foreign Merchant:

    The flow of funds story story is captured in the flow diagram 2 below.

    Fig. 2 - Flow of Funds and Factors

    (3) Income Side

    "Net product" (Quesnay's produit net) is the output that exists over and above that amount necessary as inputs to the production process. By "necessary" we mean either as capital inputs (e.g. as feed to livestock or raw materials) or to compensate humans for the toil and trouble of producing.

    Farmer:

    Farmhand:

    Landlord:

    Artisan:

    Note that only the farmer produces a "net product". The artisan has spent all his output on the production process - on raw materials, imports and compensating for his own toil. The farmer, in contrast, spent on livestock and in compensating himself and his farmhand for their toil - but his payment to the landowner does not constitute "compensation" for the landlord's "toil and trouble" for he has not undertaken any. The Physiocrats believed land was a "natural gift" to men, and thus did not think that an owner of land was undergoing "toil and trouble" in letting it be used by others and thus there is no such thing as "compensation" to the landlord - it simply was not thought of as "natural". He just grabs the net product.

    In contrast, we should note that the landlord is not the only "sterile" person here. In fact, the only "productive" person is the farmer, the only one that generated a net product. The landlord, the farmhand, the foreign merchant and, most notably, the artisan, are all part of the "sterile class" because none of them generated a net product.

    Note also that it is not necessary that the "net product" accrue to the landlord. The farmer could have kept it himself (if he could). We have unjustifiably assumed outright that what the farmer retained for himself (the 300 units of grain) was just necessary to compensate him for his toil and not more. The Physiocrats advocated taxation schemes that would redistribute net products from the sterile to the productive classes (the "single tax on land"). We should also note that this was more a normative than a positive exercise, an idealized "natural" system: Quesnay repeatedly notes that "real" conditions are never as smooth as this example purports, that there are real distortions (e.g. cash-flow problems, inequitable taxation, insufficient compensation due to excessive taxes or rents, underdeveloped markets, transportation costs, protectionist trade distortions, legal costs, etc.) but that it was the prerogative of government to ensure that these problems were mitigated if not eliminated altogether.

    Fascimile of Quesnay's Tableau

    Finally, we should connect this with the zig-zag design of the Tableau reproduced on the left (click on it for a bigger version). The zig-zag is effectively the flow of funds in a dynamic form rather than the "static" natural state. The left side of the Tableau represents the productive class (farmer) and the right side represents the sterile class (artisan). At the top in the center is the landlord. The landlord begins the flow by buying goods from both the artisan hence the income flows from the landlord to both the left (productive) and right (sterile) columns.

    The income received from the landlord is registered by the classes in their respective columns. Note that, from the income, there is an arrow that indicates "expenditures" which then extends across the Tableau to the other column. These expenditures are that of the farmer for crafts and the artisan for grain - thus they cross each other to become the income of the artisan and the farmer respectively. The farmer and the artisan then use this new income again to buy goods from each other - thus they cross again. That then becomes subsequent income and thus cross-expenditure. Thus, the zig-zag across the columns is the income-expenditure process of the farmer and the artisan.

    Notice that the landlord's initial expenditure is in fact equal to his total rent income of 600. So, rent "initiates" the process. As the zig-zag diagram and our previous numerical example shows, from his 600 rent income, the landlord spends 300 on agricultural products (to the left column in the Tableau) and 300 on manufactured products (on the right column). In the second line of the Tableau, from the Farmer's income of 300, he spends 150 on manufactured goods (thus retaining 150 for paying the farmhand for his labor), while from the Artisan's initial inome of 300, he spends 150 on agricultural goods (thus retaining 150 for imported inputs -- notice the Artisan's propensity to import is different from our earlier numerical example). From the subsequent 150 income generated for each class, a new round of expenditures for grains and crafts occurs (75 to each), etc.

    This income-expenditure process is a convergent series. The bottom of the column depicts the "natural state" once all the flows have been worked out. Note that along the farmer's column on the left side, there is a small arrow indicating the "creation" of produit net by the farmer at every stage in the process. This is summed at the bottom as the total net product of the economy. Notice that it is 600 -- which is identical to the landlord's "initial" expenditure from rent. Thus, the "rent on land" and the "net product" created are the same.

    戻る (カンティリョンの体系) ページのてっぺん 次 (アダム・スミスの体系)

    ホーム 学者一覧 (ABC) 学派あれこれ 参考文献 原サイト (英語)
    連絡先 学者一覧 (50音) トピック解説 リンク フレーム版

    免責条項© 2002-2004 Gonçalo L. Fonseca, Leanne Ussher, 山形浩生