The main interpretations of what is called either ‘Physiocracy’, ‘the Physiocratic school’, ‘the Physiocrats’, ‘the philosophes-économistes’ (as they like to call themselves), or less often ‘the Physiocratic movement’ can be classified in two broad categories. Historians of economics have concentrated almost exclusively on the theoretical contribution of the Physiocrats and presented it as a precursor to either classical economics or modern economics. Secondly, early modern historians have developed political interpretations of Physiocracy. In this regard, the most influential work is that of Elizabeth Fox-Genovese. Recent examples of Physiocratic discussions Physiocracy in the context of eighteenthcentury French political and philosophical debate include Catherine Larrère, Gino Longhitano, Henry C. Clark and Michael Sonenscher.

Although a string of recent works have contributed substantially to restoring the French political economy in studies on the culture and society of the Enlightenment and Revolution, the Physiocrats are still portrayed as a rationalist and ultra-liberal set of authors, a very small economic clique who did not really connect with the Enlightenment spirit, which itself was based on sociability and humanistic values. This representation of Physiocracy as an early modern version of neo-liberalism goes beyond the limits of the historical discipline and attains a sort of canonical status in the late Michel Foucault's Lectures at the Collège de France and, more recently, in the widely read essay, The Illusion of Free Markets, by the political scientist Bernard Harcourt.

The canonical version of Physiocracy that emerges from these interpretations and reinterpretations runs from Eugène Daire's and Karl Marx's writings in the middle of the nineteenth-century up to the present. The first feature that distinguishes Physiocrats from other political economists is their belief in the superiority of capitalistic agriculture over other economic activities in general and manufacturing in particular. More precisely, they held to a theory of exclusive productivity of agriculture, from which new wealth (produit net) could only be created through large-scale agricultural production. Hence, Physiocrats – particularly Quesnay their leader – were in favour of maximizing the net product, which they saw as the only way to augment the wealth of the French nation. Their policy advice was to favour a good price (bon prix) for agricultural products, and that such a price could only be realized when the government removed all internal and external trade impediments for agricultural products.