A “household economy” for the "polis"

The economy has been my hobby and my passion since 1977. But I still don't know what "political economy" means. Now it has come up, though, and I have to figure it out.

From Investopedia:

Political economy is an interdisciplinary branch of the social sciences that focuses on the interrelationships among individuals, governments, and public policy.
...
Political economy is a branch of social science that studies the relationship that forms between a nation's population and its government when public policy is enacted. It is, therefore, the result of the interaction between politics and the economy and is the basis of the social science discipline.
...
Political economy may draw upon sociology, economics, and political science to define how government, an economic system, and politics influence each other.

So, assuming we trust Investopedia on this, that's what political economy is today: It describes how the economy influences (and is influenced by) politics and government. Okay, I guess, but Investopedia doesn't make it real for me. There are no specifics. You wouldn't even know that money might be involved.

But they do link to "Antoine de Montchrétien and the birth of Political Economy" at Storep. This Montchrétien guy wrote a book back in 1615 that "analyzed how economics and politics are interrelated," Investopedia says. Apparently that was the beginning of "political economy". But I can't find the book online in English, so I don't know what I think that guy said.

This isn't helping me understand the meaning of the term "political economy". I have to try a different approach.

 

Based on this bit from the Investopedia article,

the term is probably best ascribed to the French writer and economist, Antoine de Montchrestien. He wrote a book called "Traité de l'économie politique" in 1615, in which he examined the need for production and wealth to be distributed on an entirely larger scale—not in the household as Aristotle suggested.

and this from Britannica,

The term political economy is derived from the Greek polis, meaning “city” or “state,” and oikonomos, meaning “one who manages a household or estate.”  Political economy thus can be understood as the study of how a country—the public’s household—is managed or governed...

I get the impression that in Montchrestien's time, his version of the word "economy" still referred to the household economy, so he used the term political economy to describe the "entirely larger scale" economy he had in mind.

If "economy" did still mean in 1615 the same as it meant in ancient Greece, something like household budgeting -- and it might have, as even today we try to "economize" when we spend money -- then this Montchrestien was apparently the one who developed the idea of the economy as applying not simply to the household but also to society as a whole, which is how we think of the economy today. How I think of it, anyway.

Now I can picture what the term "political economy" would have meant when it was invented in the 17th century. It meant, then, the same that "economics" means today. I didn't get that impression from the Investopedia article.

I've known of this ancient Greek word "oikonomos" for a long time. It has to do with household management. But I was thinking about it while I was out with the dogs: The word "household" is always used when the meaning of oikonomos is given. But I doubt it was only used, in ancient Greece and Rome, in reference to places where people lived. As in the Britannica excerpt, it referred to "a household or estate".

In ancient times, at least as I picture ancient times, there was not a lot of factory work. Most people may have lived where they worked, at home or on the estate, but either way, "oikonomos" must have mostly meant planning and tracking business revenue and expenses. Sure, a guy that only worked on the estate could do "oikonomos" for his personal budgeting, at home, after work. That might have been part of it. Sure.

If this is correct, then "oikonomos" included budgeting andor accounting, as needed, for consumers and businesses both. If the government also had the oikonomos -- and they must have, I would think -- then in all sectors of the economy there was oikonomos.

Now it makes sense to me. But let me make a distinction between the oikonomos of government and the "political economy" of government. I read the other day that the income of the Roman Empire was the personal income of the emperor. The empire was his magnificent estate. His accounting was oikonomos.

Political economy is horse of a different color, one that becomes relevant when the nation is not the personal property of its leader.