![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This article analyses the use of the term “‘political oeconomy” in the Wealth of Nations, considered by many the founding text of the discipline of Political Economy. It shows that Adam Smith could not accept the use of the term “political oeconomy” that had been made by other authors to indicate the subject matter of his scientific inquiry, devoted to the nature and causes of the wealth of nations; he used the term “political oeconomy” as a synonym for economic policy, especially in the fourth book of the Wealth of Nations. In order to understand this statement, it is necessary to keep in mind the methodological and epistemological perspective developed by Smith; in his view, the inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations would have to discover the almost unchangeable rules that presided over the choices of the legislators in the field of public economy and in the management of public resources. By contrast, the term “political oeconomy” was used by Smith exactly to indicate the policies really adopted in these fields, policies which frequently altered the system of natural liberty.
Notes
1 On the subject, see Tribe, “The Word: Economy”; Alonzi, Economia.
2 Cheney, Revolutionary Commerce, 2.
3 The use Harris made of the term “political oeconomy” in An Essai upon Money and Coins has been substantially overlooked. See Harris, Essai, 25: “This would be no less, than the taking a general view of the whole political oeconomy of established communities”; this passage derives from a comment about a significant passage in Daniel Defoe’s Plan of the English Commerce (1728). Richard van den Berg has kindly called my attention to this passage and has made his paper “Simple Economic Fictions in Richard Cantillon and Daniel Defoe” available to me.
4 On the subject, see Hoock, “Discours commercial et économie politique”; Steiner, “Commerce, commerce politique.”
5 Perrot, Une histoire intellectuelle; Bernardi, “Introduction”.
6 For the term “economy” in some seventeenth- and eighteenth-century dictionaries, see Becagli, “Économie”, “économique”, “économie politique”. For the occurrences of the term in the Encyclopédie, see Piguet, “Oeconomie/économie (politique)”; Salvat, “Les articles Oe/économie”. My interpretation of the entries written by François Quesnay and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differs from that proposed in this last article. For more on the term “economy” in the dictionaries, see Alonzi, Economia, 105–28.
7 On this subject see, especially, Tribe, Land, Labour and Economic Discourse, 36–40.
8 Rousseau, Discourse on Political Economy, 5–6. Regarding this quotation, there are no differences between the entry and the Discours: see Rousseau, “Economie ou Oeconomie (Morale & Politique)”, 338; Rousseau, Discours sur l’économie politique, 7. The italics are in the original texts:
De tout ce que je viens d’exposer, il s’ensuit que c’est avec raison qu’on a distingué l’économie publique de l’économie particulière, & que la Cité n’ayant rien de commun avec la famille que l’obligation qu’ont les chefs de rendre heureux l’un & l’autre, leurs droits ne sauraient dériver de la même source, ni les même règles de conduite convenir à tous les deux. J’ai cru qu’il souffiroit de ce peu de lignes pour renverser l’odieux système que le chevalier Filmer a tâché d’établir dans un ouvrage intitulé Patriarcha, auquel deux hommes illustres ont fait trop d’honneur en écrivant des livres pour le réfuter; au reste, cette erreur est fort ancienne, puisque Aristote même a jugé à-propos de la combattre par des raisons qu’on peut voir au premier livre de ses Politiques.
Je pris mes lecteurs de bien distinguer encore l’économie publique don’t j’ai a parler, & que j’appelle gouvernement, de l’autorité suprême que j’appelle Souveraineté; distinction qui consiste en ce que l’une a le droit legislative, & oblige en certain cas le corps même de la nations, tandis que l’autre n’a que la puissance exécutrice, & ne peut obliger que les particulier.
the subject is discussed in Aristotle’s Politica, I. ii; and incidentally in III. xiv, and VI. ii. None of these passages affords any ground for Rousseau charge of inconsistency. More colour for this may perhaps be drawn from the incidental remarks made in Ethica, X. ix.
9 Rousseau, The Social Contract and Other Later Political Writings, 50.
10 Ibid., 50–1.
11 Hutcheson, A Short Introduction, 243–65.
12 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 457. This passage is cited by Boyer, “Le systeme d’Adam Smith”, 136, to insist (excessively) on the systematicity of Smith’s thought.
13 Finley, The Ancient Economy, 20; some refinement on this fundamental work has been produced by Cartledge, “The Economy (Economies) of Ancient Greece”.
14 The catalogue of Adam Smith’s library lists the Ephemérides du citoyen complete for 1767, 1768, and 1769: see Yanaihara, Catalogue of Adam Smith’s Library, 98.
15 The manuscript of Morellet has been published in its entirety by Salvat, “De la science de l’économie publique” (see especially 85–6); see also his PhD thesis, Salvat, “Formation et diffusion de la pensée économique”. Long excerpts from Morellet’s manuscript have been published by Di Rienzo, Alle origini della Francia contemporanea, 121–4; see also Di Rienzo, “Dal philosophe all’intellettuale politico”, 159–216.
16 The position of Vincent de Gournay on this point has been summarised in the following passage by Turgot, “Eloge de Gournay (1759)”, 263:
découvrir les causes et les effets cachés de cette multitude de révolutions et de leur variation continuelles; remonter aux ressorts simples dans l’action, toujours combinée et quelquefois déguisée per les circonstances locales; diriger toutes les opérations du commerce; reconnaître ces lois unique et primitive, fondées sur la nature même, par lesquelles toutes les valeurs existant dans le commerce se balancent entre elles et se fixent à une valeur déterminée, comme les corps abandonnées à leur propre pesanteur s’arrangent d’eux même suivant l’ordre de leur gravitée specifique; saisir ses rapports compliqués par lequels le commerce s’enchaîne avec toutes les branches de l’économie politique […] c’est l’envisager en philosophe et en homme d’Etat.
17 In the opening of this book, Morellet made a significant reference to the new term:
La Science de l’économie politique paroit être arrivée de nos jours a cette époque de ses progrès. Un nombre considerable de faits ont été mieux connu & mieux constatés; on en a recherché les causes avec sagacité, la pratique c’est étendue & la théorie s’est perfectionnée. Il est tems de réunir ces connoissances & de les déposer dans un Ouvrage qui par son étendue et par sa forme puisse les repandre & peut-être en accélérer les progrès.
18 “Pourquoi cette satyre contre ceux qu’il appelle les Oeconomistes. Qui lui a dit que la discussion de leurs opinion formeroit une partie considerable de ce dictionnaire? Ou confond-il la science appellée Oeconomie politique avec ces opinions? Qu’est-ce qu’il entend par la sphère ordinaire des gens de lettres?” The translation in the text is mine; the two anonymous articles appeared in the Journal Encyclopédique, tome VII, partie I, octobre 1769, 128–32 and tome VIII, partie I, novembre 1769, 130–2.
19 “Je me défends sur-tout de cette imputation, parce qu’elle me donne une importance que je n’ai point. Je ne suis qu’un homme de Lettres, vivant dans la retraite, & absolument éloignée de toute Administration. Je m’occupe, à la verité, depuis plus de quinze années de l’étude du commerce, & de l’économie politique”. Morellet, Examen de la réponse de M. N[ecker], 23. The translation in the text is mine.
20 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 11.
21 So, in the original French: “le veritable titre de l’ouvrage de Smith seroit du travail et de ses produits et non pas de la richesse des nations” (translation and italics are mine). Regarding the reception and the criticisms of the Wealth of Nations by Morellet, see van den Berg and Salvat, “Scottish subtlety”; Salvat, “Histoire de la traduction inédite de la Richesse des Nations”.
22 Berry, “Smith and Science”, 124–35.
23 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 428.
24 “Stewart prétend donner une idée precise de l’Economie politique en indiquant l’object de cette art, qui est, dit-il, de pourvoir à tous les besoins et à l’emploi de chaque membre de la société. Selon lui, procurer un emploi convenable à tous les membres d’une société, c’est règler et conduire tous les objects que peuvent les intéresser. Il prétend que c’est là une manière très simple de definir la plus compliqué des operations et que de cette idée on peut faire la base la plus étendue de la recherche de l’économie politique. Liv. Ier, Ch. Ier. Ces notions sont très fausses. L’art du gouvernement n’est pas de pourvoir au besoin et à l’emploi de chaque membre de la société, c’est de mettre chaque membre de la société en état de pourvoir lui même à ses propre besoins et de s’empolyer pour cela de la manière qui lui convient mieux, but auxquel l’oeconomie politique atteint en assurant la propriété et la libérté naturelle”. See Salvat, “De la science de l’économie publique de Morellet”, 85–6; Di Rienzo, Alle origini della Francia contemporanea, 124.
25 Accordingly, where, in book III, Smith would have used the term “policy of Europe”, in book IV we can find the following passage:
As the political oeconomy of the nations of modern Europe has been more favourable to manufactures and foreign trade, the industry of the towns, than to agriculture, the industry of the country. So that of other nations has followed a different plan, and has been more favourable to agriculture than to manufactures and foreign trade.
26 Ibid., 663.
27 Ibid., 678–9.
28 On this passage, the Glasgow edition of Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, 455, notes that Mercier de la Rivière’s L’ordre naturel
was in Smith’s library, which also included works by Dupont de Nemours, Forbonnais, Le Trosne, Mirabeau, Morellet, and Quesnay. In addition to the Ephemerides, Smith owned copies of the Journal de l’Agriculture, du Commerce et des Finances for 1765-67, which was edited by Dupont de Nemours from september 1765 to October 1766.
29 Smith, Wealth of Nations, edited by E. Cannan, xviii.
30 Aspromourgos, The Science of Wealth, 30.
31 Ibid., 1–2.
32 Ibid., 10.
33 Brown, Adam Smith’s Discourse, 113.
34 Ibid., 114. With reference to the Introduction to book IV of the Wealth of Nations, she further states that
This discursive shift explains why Wealth of Nations was effectively left without a generic name. The title of Wealth of Nations avoids any generic self-reference referring to itself simply as ‘An Inquiry into […] the Wealth of Nations’; the significant point being that a nation’s wealth was now being conceptualised independently of the state and the old policy implications attaching to that, and so Lectures on Justice’s designation of ‘police’ was no longer appropriate. For the same reason, Wealth of Nations could not be named as an inquiry into ‘political economy’. (Ibid., 137).
35 Aspromourgos, The Science of Wealth, 341.
36 Ibid., 208.
37 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 687–8.
38 Regarding the complex relationships between Smith and Rousseau, see Rasmussen, “Adam Smith and Rousseau”; Kukathas, “Das Rousseau Problem”; Paganelli, Rasmussen, and Smith, Adam Smith and Rousseau.
39 For Adam Smith’s politics and the difficult relationships between the different fields of inquiry, see Long, “Adam Smith’s Politics”, 288–318. As is well-known, the debate on the subject has been developed along the lines drawn by Winch, Adam Smith’s Politics, and Haakonssen, The Science of a Legislator, who consider “political economy” as part of the science of the legislator.
40 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 674.
41 According to Brown, Adam Smith’s Discourse, 137:
This statement [from the introduction to book IV] cannot be taken as a description of the objectives of Wealth of Nations, since Wealth of Nations was arguing against all systems that ‘propose’ or ‘enable’ forms of enrichment. Wealth of Nations was formulating an alternative system, the system of natural liberty, that was not premised on the directed hand of a legislator/statesman to oversee economic development.
This reference to political oeconomy as a branch of the science of a legislator/statesman is generally taken to provide a self-description of Wealth of Nations itself. But in this passage it is only the mercantile and agricultural systems which are identified as systems of political oeconomy; it is not stated that Wealth of Nations itself constitutes a distinct or third system of political oeconomy.
42 Smith, Wealth of Nations (Glasgow edition), 377.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Luigi Alonzi
Luigi Alonzi received his PhD from the University of Basilicata (2001) and is associate professor of Early Modern History at the University of Palermo. His publications include Famiglia, patrimonio e finanze nobiliari: I Boncompagni (secoli XVI-XVIII) (Piero Lacaita Editore: Manduria, 2003); Economia e finanza nell’Italia moderna: Rendite e forme di censo (secoli XV-XX) (Carocci editore: Rome, 2012); Economia: Parole concetti narrazioni (secoli XVI-XVIII) (New Digital Frontiers: Palermo, 2019).