Mixed economy

A mixed economy is an economic system

that accepts both private businesses and
nationalized government services, like
public utilities, safety, military, welfare, and
education. A mixed economy also
promotes some form of regulation to
protect the public, the environment, or the
interests of the state.
This is in contrast to a laissez faire
capitalist economy which seeks to abolish
or privatize most government services
while wanting to deregulate the economy
— and a fully centrally planned economy
that seeks to nationalize most services
like under the early USSR.

Examples of political philosophies that

support mixed economies include
Keynesianism, social liberalism, state
capitalism, fascism, social democracy, the
Nordic model, and China's socialist market
economy.
A mixed economy can also be defined as
an economic system blending elements of
a market economy with elements of a
planned economy,[1] markets with state
interventionism,[2] or private enterprise
with public enterprise.[3][4] Common to all
mixed economies is a combination of free-
market principles and principles of
socialism.[5] While there is no single
definition of a mixed economy, one
definition is about a mixture of markets
with state interventionism, referring
specifically to a capitalist market economy
with strong regulatory oversight and
extensive interventions into markets.
Another is that of active collaboration of
capitalist and socialist visions.[6] Yet
another definition is apolitical in nature,
strictly referring to an economy containing
a mixture of private enterprise with public
enterprise.[7] Alternatively, a mixed
economy can refer to a reformist
transitionary phase to a socialist economy
that allows a substantial role for private
enterprise and contracting within a
dominant economic framework of public
ownership. This can extend to a Soviet-
type planned economy that has been
reformed to incorporate a greater role for
markets in the allocation of factors of
production.[5]
The idea behind a mixed economy, as
advocated by John Maynard Keynes and
several others, was not to abandon the
capitalist mode of production but to retain
a predominance of private ownership and
control of the means of production, with
profit-seeking enterprise and the
accumulation of capital as its fundamental
driving force. The difference from a
laissez-faire capitalist system is that
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
and bust cycles, unemployment, and
economic inequality.[8] In this framework,
varying degrees of public utilities and
essential services are provided by the
government, with state activity providing
public goods and universal civic
requirements, including education,
healthcare, physical infrastructure, and
management of public lands.[9] This
contrasts with laissez-faire capitalism,
where state activity is limited to
maintaining order and security, providing
public goods and services, as well as the
legal framework for the protection of
property rights and enforcement of
contracts.[10][11]
About Western European economic
models as championed by conservatives
(Christian democrats), liberals (social
liberals), and socialists (social democrats -
social democracy was created as a
combination of socialism and liberal
democracy[12]) as part of the post-war
consensus,[13] a mixed economy is in
practice a form of capitalism where most
industries are privately owned but there is
a number of utilities and essential services
under public ownership,[14] usually around
15 to 20 percent.[15] In the post-war era,
Western European social democracy
became associated with this economic
model.[16] As an economic ideal, mixed
economies are supported by people of
various political persuasions, in particular
social democrats.[17] The contemporary
capitalist welfare state has been described
as a type of mixed economy in the sense
of state interventionism, as opposed to a
mixture of planning and markets, since
economic planning was not a key feature
or component of the welfare state.[18]

Overview

While there is no single all-encompassing

definition of a mixed economy, 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, and aims to
measure the degree of state influence
through public policies in the market.[19]

The apolitical definition relates to patterns

of ownership and management of
economic enterprises in an economy,
strictly referring to a mix of public and
private ownership of enterprises in the
economy and is unconcerned with political
forms and public policy. Alternatively, it
refers to a mixture of economic planning
and markets for the allocation of
resources.[20]

History

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.[21] The oldest documented
mixed economies in the historical record
are found as early as the 4th millennium
BC in the Ancient Mesopotamian
civilization in city-states such as Uruk and
Ebla.[22] The economies of the Ancient
Greek city-states can also best be
characterized as mixed economies.[23] It is
also possible that the Phoenician city-
states depended on mixed economies to
manage trade.[24] Before being conquered
by the Roman Republic, the Etruscan
civilization engaged in a "strong mixed
economy".[25] In general, the cities of the
Ancient Mediterranean in regions such as
North Africa, Iberia, and Southern France,
among others, all practiced some form of
a mixed economy.[26] According to the
historians Michael Rostovtzeff and Pierre
Lévêque, the economies of Ancient Egypt,
pre-Columbian Mesoamerican, Ancient
Peru, Ancient China, and the Roman
Empire after Diocletian all had the basic
characteristics of mixed economies.[27]
After the collapse of the Western Roman
Empire, the Byzantine Empire in its eastern
part continued to have a mixed economy
until its destruction by the Ottoman
Empire.[28]

Medieval Islamic societies drew their

primary material basis from the classical
Mediterranean mixed economies that
preceded them,[29] and the economies of
Islamic empires such as the Abbasid
Caliphate dealt with their emerging,
prominent capitalistic sectors or market
economies through regulation via state,
social, or religious institutions.[30] Due to
having low, diffuse populations, and
disconnected trade, the economies of
Europe could not have supported
centralized states or mixed economies
and instead a primarily agrarian feudalism
predominated for the centuries following
the collapse of Rome. With the recovery of
populations and the rise of medieval
communes from the 11th century onward,
economic and political power once again
became centralized. According to Murray
Bookchin, mixed economies, which had
grown out of the medieval communes,
were beginning to emerge in Europe by the
15th century as feudalism declined.[31] In
17th-century France, Jean-Baptiste Colbert
acting as finance minister for Louis XIV
attempted to institute a mixed economy
on a national scale.[32]

The American System initially proposed by

the first United States Secretary of the
Treasury, Alexander Hamilton, and
supported by later American leaders such
as Henry Clay, John C Calhoun, and Daniel
Webster, exhibited the traits of a mixed
economy combining protectionism,
laissez-faire, and infrastructure
spending.[33][34] After 1851, Napoleon III
began the process of replacing the old
agricultural economy of France with one
that was mixed and focused on
industrialization.[35] By 1914 and the start
of World War I, Germany had developed a
mixed economy with government co-
ownership of infrastructure and industry
along with a comprehensive social welfare
system.[36] After the 1929 stock crash and
subsequent Great Depression threw much
of the global economy into a severe
economic decline, British economists such
as John Maynard Keynes began to
advocate for economic theories that
argued more government intervention in
the economy.[37] Harold Macmillan, a
British politician in the Conservative Party,
also began to advocate for a mixed
economy in his books Reconstruction
(1933) and The Middle Way (1938).[37]
Supporters of the mixed economy
included R. H. Tawney,[38] Anthony
Crosland,[39] and Andrew Shonfield, who
were mostly associated with the Labour
Party in the United Kingdom. During the
post-war period and coinciding with the
Golden Age of Capitalism, there was
general worldwide rejection of laissez-faire
economics as capitalist countries
embraced mixed economies founded on
economic planning, intervention, and
welfare.[40]

Political philosophy

In the apolitical sense, the term mixed

economy is used to describe economic
systems that 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, diverges to a significant extent
from an idealized economic model or
ideology, the task of identifying it can
become problematic, and 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 a market
economy or command economy in varying
degrees.[41]
Catholic social teaching

Jesuit author David Hollenbach 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".[42] Hollenbach
writes that a socially just mixed economy
involves labor, management, and the state
working together through a pluralistic
system that distributes economic power
widely.[43] Pope Francis has criticised
neoliberalism throughout his papacy and
encouraged state welfare programs for
"the redistribution of wealth, looking out
for the dignity of the poorest who risk
always ending up crushed by the
powerful".[44] In Evangelii gaudium, he
states: "Some people continue to defend
trickle-down theories which assume that
economic growth, encouraged by a free
market, will inevitably succeed in bringing
about greater justice and inclusiveness in
the world. This opinion, which has never
been confirmed by the facts, expresses a
crude and naïve trust in the goodness of
those wielding economic power and in the
sacralized workings of the prevailing
economic system. Meanwhile, the
excluded are still waiting."[45]
Catholic social teaching opposes both
unregulated capitalism and state
socialism. 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".[46]
Fascism

Although fascism is primarily a political

ideology that stresses the importance of
cultural and social issues over economics,
it is generally supportive of a broadly
capitalistic mixed economy. It supports
state interventionism into markets and
private enterprise, alongside a fascist
corporatist framework, referred to as a
third position that ostensibly aims to be a
middle-ground between socialism and
capitalism by mediating labor and
business disputes to promote national
unity. 20th-century fascist regimes in Italy
and Germany adopted large public works
programs to stimulate their economies
and state interventionism in largely private
sector-dominated economies to promote
re-armament and national interests. During
World War II, Germany implemented a war
economy that combined a free market
with central planning. The Nazi
government collaborated with leading
German business interests, who supported
the war effort in exchange for
advantageous contracts, subsidies, the
suppression of trade unions, and the
allowance of cartels and monopolies.[47]
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 aimed
to "save capitalism" and private
property.[48]

Socialism

Mixed economies understood as a mixture

of socially owned and private enterprises
have been predicted and advocated by
various socialists as a necessary
transitional form between capitalism and
socialism. Additionally, several 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.[49] The
social democratic theorist Eduard
Bernstein advocated a form of a mixed
economy, believing that a mixed system of
state-owned enterprises, cooperatives, and
private enterprises would be necessary for
a long period before capitalism would
evolve of its own accord into socialism.[50]
Following the Russian Civil War, Vladimir
Lenin adopted the New Economic Policy in
the Soviet Union; the introduction of a
mixed economy serving as a temporary
expedient for rebuilding the nation. The
policy eased the restrictions of war
communism and allowed a return of
markets, where private individuals could
administer small and medium-sized
enterprises, while the state would control
large industries, banks and foreign
trade.[51] 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. The
People's Republic of China adopted a
socialist market economy, which
represents an early stage of socialist
development according to the Chinese
Communist Party (CCP). The CCP takes
the Marxist–Leninist 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.[52]
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
alternative path to socialism or to a
compromise between capitalism and
socialism.[53] In this period, social
democrats embraced a mixed economy
based on the predominance of private
property and 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. Social democratic
governments in practice largely maintain
the capitalist mode of production (factor
markets, private property, and wage labor)
under a mixed economy,[54][55][56] and
pledge to reform capitalism and make
society more egalitarian and
democratic.[57]

Typology

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.[8] Other examples of
common government activity in this form
of mixed economy include environmental
protection, maintenance of employment
standards, a standardized welfare system,
and economic competition with antitrust
laws. Most contemporary market-oriented
economies fall under this category,
including the economy of the United
States.[58][59] 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 markets
with an extensive welfare state.[60][61]

The American School is the economic

philosophy that dominated United States
national policies from the time of the
American Civil War until the mid-20th
century.[62] It consisted of three core policy
initiatives: protecting industry through high
tariffs (1861–1932; changing to subsidies
and reciprocity from 1932–the 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 by 1880.[63][64][65] The
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, and 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.[66]

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 can also refer to a mixture of state
capitalism with private capitalism.
Examples include the economies of China,
Norway, Singapore, and Vietnam—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 enterprises.[67]

Following the Chinese economic reforms

initiated in 1978, the Chinese economy has
reformed its state-owned enterprises and
allowed greater scope for private
enterprises 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 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.[68]

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's Goulash
Communism, which 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
that 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.
Dirigisme was an economic policy initiated
under Charles de Gaulle in France,
designating an economy where the
government exerts strong directive
influence through indicative 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.[66]

Green New Deal (GND) proposals call for

social and economic reforms to address
climate change and economic inequality
using economic planning with market
forces for the guiding of production. The
reforms involve phasing out fossil fuels
through the implementation of a carbon
price and emission regulations, while
increasing state spending on renewable
energy. Additionally, it calls for greater
welfare spending, public housing, and job
security. GND proposals seek to maintain
capitalism but involve economic planning
to reduce carbon emissions and inequality
through increased taxation, social
spending, and state ownership of essential
utilities such as the electrical grid.[69]

Within political discourse, mixed

economies are supported by people of
various political leanings, particularly the
centre-left and centre-right. Debate reigns
over the appropriate levels of private and
public ownership, capitalism and
socialism, and government planning within
an economy. The centre-left usually
supports markets but argues for a higher
degree of regulation, public ownership,
and planning within an economy. The
centre-right generally accepts some level
of public ownership and government
intervention but argues for lower
government regulation and greater
privatisation. 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."[70]
Criticism

Numerous economists have questioned

the validity of the entire concept of a
mixed economy when understood to be a
mixture of capitalism and socialism.
Critics who argue that capitalism and
socialism cannot coexist believe either
market logic or economic planning must
be prevalent within an economy.[71]

In Human Action, Ludwig von Mises

argued that there can be no mixture of
capitalism and socialism.[72] 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 as they 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.[73]
Friedrich von Hayek and Mises 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 Belloc called "the
servile state".[74]

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
drive the economy or conscious planning
and non-monetary forms of valuation,
such as calculation in kind, ultimately drive
the economy. From the Great Depression
onward, extant mixed economies in the
Western world are still functionally
capitalist because the economic system
remains based on competition and profit
production.[75]

See also

Corporatism
Distributism
Political economy
Public–private partnership
Social corporatism
Social credit
Third Way
Tripartism
Types of capitalism
Sources and notes

1. 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. 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.
3. Stilwell, Frank J. B. (2006). Political
Economy: The Contest of Economic Ideas
(https://archive.org/details/politicalecono
my0000stil) (2 ed.). Oxford University
Press. ISBN 9780195551273. Retrieved
12 November 2018.
4. 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".
5. Young, Greg. "Mixed Economy" (https://w
ww.britannica.com/topic/mixed-econom
y) . Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
Retrieved 30 December 2021.
"Alternatively, a mixed economy can
emerge when a socialist government
makes exceptions to the rule of state
ownership to capture economic benefits
from private ownership and free-market
incentives. A combination of free market
principles of private contracting and
socialist principles of state ownership or
planning is common to all mixed
economies."
6. Mander, Jerry (2012). The Capitalism
Papers: Fatal Flaws of an Obsolete
System (https://archive.org/details/capital
ismpapers0000mand/page/213) .
Counterpoint. pp. 213–217 (https://archiv
e.org/details/capitalismpapers0000man
d/page/213) . ISBN 978-1582437170.
7. Brown, Douglas (11 November 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."
8. Pollin, Robert (2007). "Resurrection of the
Rentier" (http://www.peri.umass.edu/filea
dmin/pdf/other_publication_types/NLR28
008.pdf) Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20190412085331/http://www.peri.
umass.edu/fileadmin/pdf/other_publicati
on_types/NLR28008.pdf) 12 April 2019 at
the Wayback Machine (July–August).
Book review of Andrew Glyn's Capitalism
Unleashed: Finance, Globalization, and
Welfare. In New Left Review (46): 141–
142. "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."
9. Rees, Merlyn (1973). The Public Sector in
the Mixed Economy. Bratsford. p. 240.
ISBN 978-0713413724.
10. "Laissez-faire" (https://www.britannica.co
m/topic/laissez-faire) Archived (https://w
eb.archive.org/web/20191001030627/htt
ps://www.britannica.com/topic/laissez-fai
re) 1 October 2019 at the Wayback
Machine. Encyclopædia Britannica Online.
2 March 2021. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
11. Wu, Yu-Shan (1995). Comparative
Economic Transformations: Mainland
China, Hungary, the Soviet Union, and
Taiwan. Stanford University Press. p. 8. "In
laissez-faire capitalism, the state restricts
itself to providing public goods and
services that the economy cannot
generate by itself and to safeguarding
private ownership and the smooth
operation of the self-regulating market."
12. "social democracy" (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20150827053331/https://www.brit
annica.com/topic/social-democracy) .
Encyclopedia Britannica. Archived from
the original (https://www.britannica.com/t
opic/social-democracy) on 27 August
2015. Retrieved 30 October 2021.
13. "Mixed economy" (https://www.britannica.
com/topic/mixed-economy) .
Britannica.com. Retrieved 5 February
2022.
14. Miller, David (1998). "Social Democracy".
In Craig, Edward (ed.). Routledge
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 8. Routledge.
ISBN 9780415187138.
15. Batson, Andrew (March 2017). "The State
of the State Sector" (http://www.cebc.org.
br/sites/default/files/the_state_of_the_sta
te_sector.pdf) Archived (https://web.archi
ve.org/web/20201112032215/http://www.
cebc.org.br/sites/default/files/the_state_
of_the_state_sector.pdf) 12 November
2020 at the Wayback Machine. Gavekal
Dragonomics. p. 4. Retrieved 19 August
2020. "While some may find these
estimates low, they are not. Even in the
statist 1960s–70s, SOEs in France and the
UK did not account for more than 15–20%
of capital formation; in the 1980s the
developed-nation average was around 8%,
and it dropped below 5% in the 1990s.
SOEs' role in China is many times larger."
16. 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."
17. "Social democracy". Jason P. Abbot.
Routledge Encyclopedia of International
Political Economy. Ed. R. J. Barry Jones.
Taylor & Francis, 2001. 1410
18. O'Hara, Phillip Anthony, ed. (1999).
"Welfare state". Encyclopedia of Political
Economy. Routledge. p. 1247. ISBN 0-415-
24187-1. "The welfare state emerged in
the twentieth century as one institutional
form of this socially protective response.
In the 1930s, the responses of emerging
welfare states to the Great Depression
were to the immediate circumstances of
massive unemployment, lost output, and
collapse of the financial and trading
systems. Planning was not a key element
in the response to the crisis of capitalism.
Instead, the character of welfare state
intervention can best be described as an
'interventionist drift', reflecting the
spontaneous, uncoordinated reactions of
the protective response."
19. Brown, Douglas (11 November 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 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."
20. Brown, Douglas (11 November 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."
21. Reisman, David A. Theories of the Mixed
Economy (Theories of the mixed
economy). Pickering & Chatto Ltd. ISBN 1-
85196-214-X.
22. Karl Moore; David Charles Lewis (2 June
2009). The Origins of Globalization (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=LXWTAg
AAQBAJ&pg=PA40) . Routledge. pp. 24–
25, 36. ISBN 978-1-135-97008-6.
23. Signe Isager; Jens Erik Skydsgaard (3
April 2013). Ancient Greek Agriculture: An
Introduction (https://books.google.com/b
ooks?id=YU8qBgAAQBAJ) . Routledge.
p. 202. ISBN 978-1-134-81827-3.
24. Terostra, Taco (9 April 2019). Trade in the
Ancient Mediterranean: Private Order and
Public Institutions (https://books.google.c
om/books?id=VnRzDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA4
8) . Princeton University Press. p. 48.
ISBN 978-0-691-18970-3.
25. Dunstan, William E. (16 November 2010).
Ancient Rome (https://books.google.com/
books?id=xkOhwFzz1AkC&pg=PA10) .
Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. p. 10.
ISBN 978-0-7425-6834-1.
26. The Cambridge Economic History of
Europe from the Decline of the Roman
Empire: Trade and industry in the Middle
Ages (https://books.google.com/books?id
=bAwPAQAAMAAJ) . The University
Press. 1941. p. 35. ISBN 9780521087100.
27. Douglas, Jack D. (29 September 2017).
The Myth of the Welfare State (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=lmVQDwAAQBA
J) . Taylor & Francis. p. 339. ISBN 978-1-
351-47905-9.
28. Oaks, Dumbarton (1986). Continuity and
Change in Late Byzantine and Early
Ottoman Society: Papers Given at a
Symposium at Dumbarton Oaks in May
1982 (https://books.google.com/books?id
=eUhoAAAAMAAJ) . University of
Birmingham, Centre for Byzantine Studies.
p. 59. ISBN 978-0-7044-0748-0.
29. Professor W Montgomery Watt; Pierre
Cachia (1977). A History of Islamic Spain
(https://books.google.com/books?id=qTi
G6DsJi7AC&pg=PA43) . Transaction
Publishers. p. 43. ISBN 978-1-4128-4471-
0.
30. Turner, Bryan S. (1998). Weber and Islam
(https://books.google.com/books?id=tTiz
PWAGDU4C&pg=PA125) . Psychology
Press. p. 125. ISBN 978-0-415-17458-9.
31. White, Damian F. (20 October 2008).
Bookchin: A Critical Appraisal (https://boo
ks.google.com/books?id=oanZAAAAMAA
J) . Pluto Press. p. 63. ISBN 978-0-7453-
1965-0.
32. Nationalization and Privatization in
Contemporary France (https://books.goog
le.com/books?id=xSnQJ8kZz6MC&pg=PA
4) . Hoover Press. p. 4. ISBN 978-0-8179-
5153-5.
33. Fels, Rendigs (1961). Challenge to the
American Economy: An Introduction to
Economics (https://books.google.com/bo
oks?id=AQXaAAAAIAAJ) . Allyn and
Bacon. p. 39.
34. Frederick William Preston; Ronald Wayne
Smith (1988). Sociology: A Contemporary
Approach (https://books.google.com/boo
ks?id=V4C2gV6I9DkC) . Allyn and Bacon.
p. 501. ISBN 978-0-205-11384-2.
35. Philip J. Adler; Randall L. Pouwels (28
September 2016). World Civilizations (http
s://books.google.com/books?id=PPi5DQA
AQBAJ&pg=PA442) (8 ed.). Cengage
Learning. p. 442. ISBN 978-1-337-51764-5.
OCLC 1100703755 (https://www.worldcat.
org/oclc/1100703755) .
36. Michael Charles Howard; John Edward
King (14 July 2014). A History of Marxian
Economics, Volume I: 1883-1929 (https://
books.google.com/books?id=IhgABAAAQ
BAJ&pg=PA66) . Princeton University
Press. p. 66. ISBN 978-1-4008-6052-4.
37. Pekka Suvanto; trans Roderick Fletcher (7
March 2016). Conservatism from the
French Revolution to the 1990s (https://bo
oks.google.com/books?id=Xd6zCwAAQB
AJ&pg=PA105) . Springer. pp. 105–106.
ISBN 978-1-349-25888-8.
38. Tawney, R. H. (1964). Equality. London:
Allen and Unwin. ISBN 0-04-323014-8.
39. Crosland, Anthony (1977). The Future of
socialism. Westport, Conn: Greenwood
Press. ISBN 0-8371-9586-1.
40. Guichard, Sylvie; Mehrotra, Santosh (29
October 2020). Planning in the 20th
Century and Beyond: India's Planning
Commission and the NITI Aayog (https://b
ooks.google.com/books?id=6xzhDwAAQB
AJ&pg=PA285) . Cambridge University
Press. p. 285. ISBN 978-1-108-49462-5.
41. Vuong, Quan-Hoang. Financial Markets in
Vietnam's Transition Economy: Facts,
Insights, Implications (https://www.amazo
n.com/dp/3639233832) Archived (http
s://web.archive.org/web/2020011005435
1/https://www.amazon.com/dp/3639233
832) 10 January 2020 at the Wayback
Machine. ISBN 978-3-639-23383-4, VDM
Verlag, February 2010, 66123
Saarbrücken, Germany.
42. Pius XI (15 May 1931). Quadragesimo
Anno (https://www.vatican.va/content/piu
s-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_en
c_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
200601175933/https://www.vatican.va/co
ntent/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/h
f_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-ann
o.html) 1 June 2020 at the Wayback
Machine. Paragraph 79. Retrieved 12
August 2018. The papal text refers to
"every social activity", not only to
government.
43. Hollenbach, David (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.
44. "Pope: Taxation should favor wealth
redistribution for public services" (https://
www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2022
-01/pope-francis-italy-tax-authority-agenzi
e-entrate.html) . Vatican News. 31
January 2022. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
45. "Pope Francis understands economics
better than most politicians" (https://www.
theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2
013/nov/27/pope-francis-inequality-bigge
st-issue-our-time) . The Guardian. 27
November 2013. Retrieved 1 March 2022.
46. 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.
47. Scherner, Jonas (2006). "Industrial
Investment in Nazi Germany: The
Forgotten Wartime Boom" (https://econo
mics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/Wo
rkshops-Seminars/Economic-History/sche
rner-060329.pdf) . Archived (https://web.a
rchive.org/web/20211127061551/https://
economics.yale.edu/sites/default/files/fil
es/Workshops-Seminars/Economic-Histor
y/scherner-060329.pdf) 27 November
2021 at the Wayback Machine Yale
University. Retrieved 14 October 2022.
48. Gupta, Dipankar (18 June 1977). "The
Political Economy of Fascism". Economic
and Political Weekly. 12 (25): 987–992.
49. Nove, Alexander. "Feasible Socialism:
Market or Plan – Or Both" (http://www.wh
atnextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Feasso
c.html) . Archived (https://web.archive.or
g/web/20170925035751/http://www.what
nextjournal.co.uk/Pages/Ratner/Feassoc.
html) 25 September 2017 at the Wayback
Machine What Next Journal. Retrieved 14
October 2022.
50. 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.
51. "The New Economic Policy (NEP)" (https://
alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/new-e
conomic-policy-nep/#:~:text=Introduced%
20by%20Vladimir%20Lenin%20in,of%20m
arkets%20and%20petty%20trade)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
221206162716/https://alphahistory.com/r
ussianrevolution/new-economic-policy-ne
p/#:~:text=Introduced%20by%20Vladimi
r%20Lenin%20in,of%20markets%20and%2
0petty%20trade) 6 December 2022 at the
Wayback Machine. Alpha History.
Retrieved 2 March 2022.
52. "Socialist Market Economic System" (htt
p://english.mofcom.gov.cn/article/topic/b
izchina/economicsystem/200406/200406
00239133.shtml) . Ministry of Commerce
of the People's Republic of China. 25 June
2004. Retrieved 8 February 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 the 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"
53. 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 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."
54. 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."
55. 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."
56. 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."
57. 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."
58. "U.S. Economy - Basic Conditions &
Resources" (http://usa.usembassy.de/eco
nomy-conditions.htm) Archived (https://
web.archive.org/web/20171020162230/ht
tps://usa.usembassy.de/economy-conditi
ons.htm) 20 October 2017 at the
Wayback Machine. 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."
Retrieved 24 October 2011.
59. (4)Outline of the U.S. Economy – (2)How
the U.S. Economy Works (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20120114051146/http://info
pedia.usembassy.or.kr/ENG/_f_030401.ht
ml) . U.S. Embassy Information Resource
Center. "As a result, the American
economy is perhaps better described as a
"mixed" economy, with the 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." Retrieved 24 October 2011.
60. Lahti, Arto. Globalization & the Nordic
Success Model: Part II. 2010. Arto Lahti &
Ventus Publishing ApS. p 60. ISBN 978-87-
7681-550-9.
61. Eds. Johan Fritzell, Bjorn Hvinden, Mikko
Kautto, Jon Kvist, Hannu Uusitalo. The
Nordic Welfare States in the European
Context. 2001. Routledge. p 3. ISBN 0-415-
24161-8.
62. "The Progressive Movement" (http://www.
u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html)
Archived (https://web.archive.org/web/20
110523093509/http://www.u-s-history.co
m/pages/h1061.html) 23 May 2011 at
the Wayback Machine. United States
History. Retrieved 12 February 2011.
63. Pugh, Martin.The Making of Modern
British Politics..
64. O'Brien, Robert; Williams, Marc. Global
Political Economy..
65. See the following sources:
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 States, foreclosed the
option that the United States would
remain a rural society with an
agrarian economy, as so many
Jeffersonians had hoped. ...
Hamiltonian side ... the Federalists;
the National Republicans; the Whigs,
the Republicans; the Progressives ... ."
(from Hamilton's Republic (https://arc
hive.org/details/hamiltonsrepubli00m
ich) 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, elaborated 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 Leonard P. Curry, the historian
of the legislation has aptly written,
amounted to a 'blueprint for modern
America'. ... The man Lincoln selected
for the sensitive position of Secretary
of the Treasury, Salmon P. Chase, was
an ex-Democrat, but of the moderate
variety 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
66. Gardner, Martin (1991). Whys of a
Philosophical Scrivener. St. Martin's Press.
67. Rosser, Mariana V. and J Barkley Jr.
(2004). 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
collaboration 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."
68. Fan, He (9 January 2015). "The long
march to the mixed economy in China" (htt
p://www.eastasiaforum.org/2015/02/09/t
he-long-march-to-the-mixed-economy-in-c
hina/) . East Asia Forum Quarterly:
Volume 6, Number 4, 2014. 6 (4): 3–5.
Retrieved 9 February 2018.
69. "The Green New Deal Explained" (https://w
ww.investopedia.com/the-green-new-deal-
explained-4588463) Archived (https://we
b.archive.org/web/20220427131003/http
s://www.investopedia.com/the-green-new-
deal-explained-4588463) 27 April 2022 at
the Wayback Machine. Investopedia.
Retrieved 2 March 2022.
70. Zombie Economics: How Dead Ideas Still
Walk among Us (https://books.google.co
m/books?id=pTgiRDj-uIYC&dq=%22real+q
uestion+for+policy+debates+is+one+of+d
etermining+the+appropriate+mix%22&pg=
PA78) Archived (https://web.archive.org/
web/20221206162755/https://books.goo
gle.com/books?id=pTgiRDj-uIYC&pg=PA7
8&lpg=PA78&dq=%22real+question+for+p
olicy+debates+is+one+of+determining+th
e+appropriate+mix%22&source=bl&ots=c-
OtfOKT0d&sig=ACfU3U0PSeHlrct_bKaaLo
0cIglrT9Oj2Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEw
jUhvqYkLXhAhUIZKwKHVWcA5EQ6AEwA
HoECAEQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22real%20
question%20for%20policy%20debates%20
is%20one%20of%20determining%20the%2
 0appropriate%20mix%22&f=false) 6
December 2022 at the Wayback Machine,
John Quiggin, Princeton University Press,
2010, p. 78. The author made this
statement in his chapter which is sharply
critical of the strong version of "The
efficient-market hypothesis", especially as
it pertains to financial markets.
71. "Mixed Economic System" (https://www.in
vestopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-economi
c-system.asp) Archived (https://web.arch
ive.org/web/20220501061302/https://ww
w.investopedia.com/terms/m/mixed-econ
omic-system.asp) 1 May 2022 at the
Wayback Machine. Investopedia.
Retrieved 1 March 2022.
72. Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A
Treatise on Economics. Liberty Fund.
p. 259. ISBN 978-0-8659-7631-3. "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."
73. Mises, Ludwig (2007). Human Action: A
Treatise on Economics. Liberty Fund.
p. 259. ISBN 978-0-8659-7631-3. "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 labor, 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."
74. Gardner, Martin (1991). Whys of a
Philosophical Scrivener. St. Martin's Press.
p. 126.
75. Mattick, Paul (1969). "State-Capitalism
and The Mixed Economi" (https://www.ma
rxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1969/mar
x-keynes/ch20.htm) . The Limits of the
Mixed Economy. Boston, Massachusetts:
Extending Horizons Books/Porter Sargent
Publisher. Retrieved 17 January 2014 –
via Marxists Internet Archive. "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,
D.C.: 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 (1992). "Economic theory and the
welfare state: a survey and interpretation".
Journal of Economic Literature. 30 (2): 741–
803. A review essay looking at the
economics literature.
Sanford Ikeda (1997). Dynamics of the Mixed
Economy: Toward a Theory of
Interventionism. London: Routledge.

External links

Mixed economy (https://www.britannic

a.com/topic/mixed-economy) at
 Encyclopædia Britannica Online

Retrieved from
"https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?
title=Mixed_economy&oldid=1193655791"

This page was last edited on 4 January 2024, at

23:12 (UTC). •
Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless
otherwise noted.