Change and Progress

It remains to compare the classical and institutionalist theories of progress. Progress has been given a bad name in recent social thought, largely because of the popularity of the “mores-nihilism” of cultural relativism. In fact, it has been in an attempt to escape from the critics of progress that the classical economists have fled to a seemingly safe position by proclaiming that “equilibrium is just equilibrium.” Nevertheless, as one writer has stated, “Economic thinking has always embodied some conception of progress and must always do so; for the concept of value is the chief concern of economic thinking, and progress is indissociable from value.” ¹ Although the contemporary classicist may claim that his theory is free of value connotations, classical theory has always, at least implicitly, contained a theory of progress. Kenneth Boulding is explicit in asserting the necessity for a theory of progress when he states that, “The equilibrium concept is not, therefore, a sufficient guide in the criticism of economic systems or policies; it must be supplemented by some theory of economic progress.” ² Although some classicists shy away from dealing with progress directly, Boulding presents in brief compass the classical doctrine of economic progress, without any equivocation or misgivings.