Task 10. Compose a summary of the text in 80 words.

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 376.

HRYHORIY TSEKHANOVETSKYY

(1833–1898)

The older historical school in Ukraine can be represented by Hryhoriy Tsekhanovetskyy. Born in Chernihiv province, H. Tsekha­novetskyy was educated at Kyiv University, from which he obtained Master' and Doctoral degrees in 1859 and 1869, respectively. Between 1859 and 1872 he was a faculty member at Kyiv University; from 1873 until his death, a professor of economics at Kharkiv University. Between 1881 and 1884, he served as Rector of this University. During his career H. Tsekhanovetskyy had the opportunity to make three study tours of Western European universities. He was a thoughtful and conscientious lecturer and under his guidance, a number of students at Kharkiv University worked for their Master's and Doctoral degrees.

H. Tsekhanovetskyy did not publish much. Of his works only two are available in the West and only a monograph on Adam Smith is of certain interest to the study of the history of economic thought in Ukraine. In the monograph on Adam Smith H. Tsekhanovetskyy analyzes critically some of the most important components of the teachings of the father of modern economics. For example, he attacks the following three premises by A. Smith: (1) people are motivated in their economic life solely by self-interest; (2) by pursuing self-improvement, people contribute at the same time to the benefit of the entire society; and (3) in order to facilitate the attainment of these two objectives, government should abstain from any interference in the economic affairs of a nation.

Discussing the first point, H. Tsekhanovetskyy criticises Smith's generalisation of human behaviour: “Speaking about the individual as a producer, A. Smith does not distinguish national characteristics among people, does not see historical differences among them, assumes that all human beings are similar to one another”.

A. Smith's idea that unrestricted human behaviour toward self-improvement will lead at the same time to the benefit of all appears to H. Tsekhanovetskyy also to be susceptible to criticism. In addition to antisocial traits within some individuals, most people entering into economic relations with others try to improve themselves not only through their own labour, but also at the expense of others. H. Tsekhanovetskyy rejects the notion that such social behaviour is transitory and should disappear with economic development.

While rejecting complete non-intervention of the government in economic life (point 3 above), H. Tsekhanovetskyy opposes also the other extreme; he is against the various proposals of mercantilists, protectionists and socialists (whom he calls utopians) who wish to make government responsible for all or for most economic decisions.

Having disagreed with the classical approach to the study of economics, H. Tsekhanovetskyy expresses his preference for the historical approach. He states that this approach in economics is like anatomy and physiology in medicine: Only a historical study of economics can suggest the appropriate cure for social and economic ills. According to H. Tsekhanovetskyy, political economy and other social sciences accepted the historical method, which can be called experimental to a higher degree because it looks at a phenomenon not a given moment of time, but in the fullness of its historical development and consequently comprehends life … better.