Hegel's theory of economic nationalism: political economy in the Philosophy of Right

Abstract

The author explores Hegel's theory of economic nationalism in the Philosophy of Right. In that work, Hegel incorporates economics within a systematic theory of the nation-state. Hegel argues that both capitalism and nationalism are the products of the state, which emancipates human capacities by founding and securing individual rights. Capitalism, however, is an inherently self contradictory social phenomenon to which Hegel responds in a sophisticated manner, one eschewing those economic ideologies which subsequently dominated modern economic thought. Moreover, his response differs fundamentally from other supposed defenders of economic nationalism. Unlike the rationalist Fichte, that other great German defender of a national economics, Hegel paves the way to a scientific understanding of the relationship between the modern economy and the nation-state, in other words, a theory of economic nationalism.

Keywords:

• Economic nationalism
• interpretation
• subjective will
• the corporation
• Fichte

Notes

* The author is thankful of the comments provided by the two referees of this journal. The usual disclaimer applies.

Political economists have tended to confuse the nation or the nation-state with the state in discussions of economic nationalism. However, the conceptual boundaries of economic nationalism should be limited by referring to the ‘nation’ rather than the ‘state’. For example, classical mercantilism in seventeenth-century Europe is not economic nationalism, because it pre-dates the emergence of nationalism. See Mayall (1990: 72), Crane (1998), Shulman (2000) and Helleiner (2002).

Comprehension’ can be called the interpretive approach to social science in the modern term. See Steinberger (1977) and Westphal (1992: chapt.6).

Another reason why Hegel's political economy is likely to be misunderstood as non-descriptive is that his philosophy is essentially dynamic; considering historical change and using future-oriented terms such as development, dialectical movement, progress and so on. (Carvounas 2002: 57 – 60; cf. Neuhouser 2000: 11).

Recent contributions by intellectual historians support this claim. It is true that Hegel is profoundly influenced by Smith. However, first, Donald Winch shows that Smith's political economy is significantly different from Say's and Richardo's (Winch 1978 and 1983). Second, Norbert Waszak argues that Hegel did not have direct knowledge of Say and Ricardo, yet regarded them as followers of Smith (Waszek 1988: 133, 144).

However, Hegel does not deny that the members of the agricultural estate can know and will their substantial freedom embodied by the state (Franco 1999: 260 – 1).

Ian Fraser focuses on the material or natural aspect of needs in Hegel's system, and sees poverty merely as lack of the minimum level of material needs (Fraser 1998). However, as will be seen, Hegel lays more stress on the social and spiritual rather than the material aspects of poverty, though he does not neglect the material aspect.

800,000 people emigrated between 1815 and 1850. See Trebilcock (1981: 32).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Takeshi Nakano

* The author is thankful of the comments provided by the two referees of this journal. The usual disclaimer applies.