Principles of Political Economy · John Stuart Mill
INTRODUCTORY.
In the field of distribution and exchange Ricardo made great additions. Malthus and West had shown that rent was not an element in cost of production; but both Malthus and Ricardo seemed to have been familiar with the doctrine of rent long before the former published his book. Ricardo, however, saw into its connection with other parts of a system of distribution.(34) The Malthusian doctrine of a pressure of population on subsistence naturally forced a recognition of the law of diminishing returns from land;(35) then as soon as different qualities of land were simultaneously cultivated, the best necessarily gave larger returns than the poorest; and the idea that the payment of rent was made for a superior instrument, and in proportion to its superiority over the poorest instrument which society found necessary to use, resulted in the law of rent. Ricardo, moreover, carried out this principle as it affected wages, profits, values, and the fall of profits; but did not give sufficient importance to the operation of forces in the form of improvements acting in opposition to the tendency toward lessened returns. The theory of rent still holds its place, although it has met with no little opposition.(36) A doctrine, quite as important in its effects on free exchange, was clearly established by Ricardo, under the name of the doctrine of “Comparative Cost,” which is the reason for the existence of any and all international trade.
The work of Adam Smith was soon known to other countries, apart from translations. A most lucid and attractive exposition was given to the French by J. B. Say, “Traité d’économie politique” (1803), followed, after lecturing in Paris from 1815-1830, by a more complete treatise,(37) “Cours complète d’économie politique” (1828). While not contributing much that was new, Say did a great service by popularizing previous results in a happy and lively style, combined with good arrangement, and many illustrations. The theory that general demand and supply are identical is his most important contribution to the study. Although he translated Ricardo’s book, he did not grasp the fact that rent did not enter into price. Say’s work was later supplemented by an Italian, Pellegrino Rossi,(38) who, in his “Cours d’économie politique” (1843-1851), naturalized the doctrines of Malthus and Ricardo on French soil. His work is of solid value, and he and Say have given rise to an active school of political economy in France. In Switzerland, Sismondi expounded Adam Smith’s results in his “De la richesse commerciale” (1803), but was soon led into a new position, explained in his “Nouveaux principes d’économie politique” (1819). This has made him the earliest and most distinguished of the humanitarian economists.
Seeing the sufferings caused by readjustments of industries after the peace, and the warehouses filled with unsold goods, he thought the excess of production over the power of consumption was permanent, and attacked division of labor, labor-saving machinery, and competition. Discoveries which would supersede labor he feared would continue, and the abolition of patents, together with the limitation of population,(39) was urged. These arguments furnished excellent weapons to the socialistic agitators. Heinrich Storch(40) aimed to spread the views of Adam Smith(41) in Russia, by his “Cours d’économie politique” (1815). Without further developing the theory of political economy, he produced a book of exceptional merit by pointing out the application of the principles to Russia, particularly in regard to the effect of a progress of wealth on agriculture and manufactures; to the natural steps by which a new country changes from agriculture to a manufacturing _régime_; and to finance and currency, with an account of Russian depreciated paper since Catharine II. For the next advance, we must again look to England. Passing by McCulloch(42) and Senior, a gifted writer, the legitimate successor of Ricardo is John Stuart Mill.(43) His father, James Mill,(44) introduced him into a circle of able men, of which Bentham was the ablest, although his father undoubtedly exercised the chief influence over his training. While yet but twenty-three, in his first book, “Essays on some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy” (1829-1830), he gained a high position as an economist. In one form or another, all his additions to the study are to be found here in a matured condition. The views on productive and unproductive consumption, profits, economic methods, and especially his very clever investigation on international values, were there presented. His “Logic” (1843) contains (Book VI) a careful statement of the relation of political economy to other sciences, and of the proper economic method to be adopted in investigations.
Through his “Principles of Political Economy” (1848) he has exercised a remarkable influence upon men in all lands; not so much because of great originality, since, in truth, he only put Ricardo’s principles in better and more attractive form, but chiefly by a method of systematic treatment more lucid and practical than had been hitherto reached, by improving vastly beyond the dry treatises of his predecessors (including Ricardo, who was concise and dull), by infusing a human element into his aims, and by illustrations and practical applications. Even yet, however, some parts of his book show the tendency to too great a fondness for abstract statement, induced probably by a dislike to slighting his reasons (due to his early training), and by the limits of his book, which obliged him to omit many possible illustrations. With a deep sympathy for the laboring-classes, he was tempted into the field of sociology in this book, although he saw distinctly that political economy was but one of the sciences, a knowledge of which was necessary to a legislator in reaching a decision upon social questions. Mill shows an advance beyond Ricardo in this treatise, by giving the study a more practical direction. Although it is usual to credit Mill with originating the laws of international values, yet they are but a development of Ricardo’s doctrine of international trade, and Mill’s discussions of the progress of society toward the stationary state were also hinted at, although obscurely, by Ricardo. In the volumes of Mr. Mill the subject is developed as symmetrically as a proof in geometry. While he held strongly to free trade,(45) he gave little space to the subject in his book. All in all, his book yet remains the best systematic treatise in the English language, although much has been done since his day.(46)
He who has improved upon previous conceptions, and been the only one to make any very important advance in the science since Mill’s day, is J. E. Cairnes,(47) in his “Leading Principles of Political Economy newly expounded” (1874). Scarcely any previous writer has equaled him in logical clearness, originality, insight into economic phenomena, and lucidity of style. He subjected value, supply and demand, cost of production, and international trade, to a rigid investigation, which has given us actual additions to our knowledge of the study. The wages-fund theory was re-examined, and was stated in a new form, although Mr. Mill had given it up. Cairnes undoubtedly has given it its best statement. His argument on free trade (Part III, chapter iv) is the ablest and strongest to be found in modern writers. This volume is, however, not a systematic treatise on all the principles of political economy; but no student can properly pass by these great additions for the right understanding of the science. His “Logical Method of Political Economy” (1875) is a clear and able statement of the process to be adopted in an economic investigation, and is a book of exceptional merit and usefulness, especially in view of the rising differences in the minds of economists as to method.
A group of English writers of ability in this period have written in such a way as to win for them mention in connection with Cairnes and Mill. Professor W. Stanley Jevons(48) put himself in opposition to the methods of the men just mentioned, and applied the mathematical process to political economy, but without reaching new results. His most serviceable work has been in the study of money, which appears in an excellent form, “The Money and Mechanism of Exchange” (1875), and in an investigation which showed a fall of the value of gold since the discoveries of 1849. In this latter he has furnished a model for any subsequent investigator. Like Professor Jevons, T. E. Cliffe Leslie(49) opposed the older English school (the so-called “orthodox”), but in the different way of urging with great ability the use of the historical method, of which more will be said in speaking of later German writers.(50) He also distinguished himself by a study of land tenures, in his “Land Systems and Industrial Economy of Ireland, England, and Continental Countries” (1870), which was a brilliant exposition of the advantages of small holdings. By far the ablest of the group, both by reason of his natural gifts and his training as a banker and financial editor, was Walter Bagehot.(51) In his “Economic Studies” (1880) he has discussed with a remarkable economic insight the postulates of political economy, and the position of Adam Smith, Ricardo, and Malthus; in his “Lombard Street” (fourth edition, 1873), the money market is pictured with a vivid distinctness which implies the possession of rare qualities for financial writing; indeed, it is in this practical way also, as editor of the London “Economist,”(52) that he made his great reputation.
Of living English economists, Professor Henry Fawcett,(53) in his “Manual of Political Economy” (1865; sixth edition, 1883), is a close follower of Mill, giving special care to co-operation, silver, nationalization of land, and trades-unions. He is an exponent of the strict wages-fund theory, and a vigorous free-trader. Professor J. E. Thorold Rogers, of Oxford, also holds aloof from the methods of the old school. His greatest contribution has been a “History of Agriculture and Prices in England,” from 1255 to 1793, in four volumes(54) (1866-1882). Of all the writers(55) since Cairnes, it may be said that, while adding to the data with which political economy has to do, and putting principles to the test of facts, they have made no actual addition to the existing body of principles; although questions of distribution and taxation are certainly not yet fully settled, as is seen by the wide differences of opinion expressed on subjects falling within these heads by writers of to-day.
It now remains to complete this sketch of the growth of political economy by a brief account of the writers on the Continent and in the United States, beginning with France. About the time of the founding of the London “Economist” (1844) and “The Statistical Journal” (1839) in England, there was established in Paris the “Journal des Économistes” (1842), which contains many valuable papers. On the whole, the most popular writer since J. B. Say has been Bastiat,(56) who aspired to be the French Cobden. He especially urged a new(57) view of value, which he defined as the relation established by an exchange of services; that nature’s products are gratuitous, so that man can not exact anything except for a given service. Chiefly as a foe of protection, which he regarded as qualified socialism, he has won a reputation for popular and clever writing; and he was led to believe in a general harmony of interests between industrial classes; but in general he can not be said to have much influenced the course of French thought. On value, rent, and population, he is undoubtedly unsound. A writer of far greater depth than Bastiat, with uncommon industry and wide knowledge, was Michel Chevalier,(58) easily the first among modern French economists.
He has led in the discussion upon the fall of gold, protection, banking, and particularly upon money; an ardent free-trader, he had influence enough to induce France to enter into the commercial treaty of 1860 with England. One of the ablest writers on special topics is Levasseur,(59) who has given us a history of the working-classes before and since the Revolution, and the best existing monograph on John Law. The most industrious and reliable of the recent writers is the well-known statistician, Maurice Block,(60) while less profound economists were J. A. Blanqui(61) and Wolowski.(62) The latter devoted himself enthusiastically to banks of issue, and bimetallism. A small group gave themselves up chiefly to studies on agriculture and land-tenures—H. Passy,(63) Laveleye, and Lavergne.(64) The latter is by far the most important, as shown by his “L’économie rurale de la France depuis 1789” (1857), which gives a means of comparing recent French agriculture with that before the Revolution, as described in Arthur Young’s “Travels in France” (1789). The best systematic treatise in French is the “Précis de la science économique” (1862), by Antoine-Élise Cherbuliez,(65) a Genevan. The French were the first to produce an alphabetical encyclopædia of economics, by Coquelin and Guillaumin, entitled the “Dictionnaire de l’économie politique” (1851-1853, third edition, 1864). Courcelle-Seneuil,(66) by his “Traité théorique et pratique d’économie politique” (second edition, 1867); and Baudrillart, by a good compendium. Joseph Garnier, Dunoyer,(67) Paul Leroy-Beaulieu,(68) Reybaud,(69) De Parieu,(70) Léon Say,(71) Boiteau, and others, have done excellent work in France, and Walras(72) in Switzerland.
As Cobden had an influence on Bastiat, so both had an influence in Germany in creating what has been styled by opponents the “Manchester school,” led by Prince-Smith (died 1874). They have worked to secure complete liberty of commerce and industry, and include in their numbers many men of ability and learning. Yearly congresses have been organized for the purpose of disseminating liberal ideas, and an excellent review, the “Vierteljahrschrift für Volkswirthschaft, Politik, und Kulturgeschichte,”(73) has been established. They have devoted themselves successfully to reforms of labor-laws, interest, workingmen’s dwellings, the money system, and banking, and strive for the abolition of protective duties. Schulze-Delitzsch has acquired a deserved reputation for the creation of people’s banks, and other forms of co-operation. The translator of Mill into German, Adolph Soetbeer,(74) is the most eminent living authority on the production of the precious metals, and a vigorous monometallist. The school is represented in the “Handwörterbuch der Volkswirthschaftslehre” (1865) of Reutzsch. The other writers of this group are Von Böhmert,(75) Faucher, Braun, Wolff, Michaelis, Emminghaus,(76) Wirth,(77) Hertzka, and Von Holtzendorf. The best known of the German protectionists is Friedrich List, the author of “Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie” (1841), whose doctrines are very similar to those of H. C. Carey in this country.(78) An able writer on administrative functions and finance(79) is Lorenz Stein, of Vienna.
But German economists are of interest, inasmuch as they have established a new school who urge the use of the historical method in political economy, and it is about the question of method that much of the interest of to-day centers. In 1814 Savigny introduced this method into jurisprudence, and about 1850 it was applied to political economy. The new school claim that the English “orthodox” writers begin by an _a priori_ process, and by deductions reach conclusions which are possibly true of imaginary cases, but are not true of man as he really acts. They therefore assert that economic laws can only be truly discovered by induction, or a study of phenomena first, as the means of reaching a generalization. To them Bagehot(80) answers that scientific bookkeeping, or collections of facts, in themselves give no results ending in scientific laws; for instance, since the facts of banking change and vary every day, no one can by induction alone reach any laws of banking; or, for example, the study of a panic from the concrete phenomena would be like trying to explain the bursting of a boiler without a theory of steam.
More lately,(81) since it seems that the new school claim that induction does not preclude deduction, and as the old school never intended to disconnect themselves from “comparing conclusions with external facts,” there is not such a cause of difference as has previously appeared. Doubtless the insistence upon the merits of induction will be fruitful of good to “orthodox” writers, in the more general resort to the collection of statistics and means of verification. It is suggestive also that the leaders of the new school in Germany and England have reached no different results by their new method, and in the main agree with the laws evolved by the old English school. The economist does not pretend that his assumptions are descriptions of economic conditions existing at a given time; he simply considers them as forces (often acting many on one point or occasion) to be inquired into separately, inasmuch as concrete phenomena are the resultants of several forces, not to be known until we know the separate operation of each of the conjoined forces.
The most prominent of the new school is Wilhelm Roscher,(82) of Leipsic, who wrote a systematic treatise, “System der Volkswirthschaft” (1854, sixteenth edition, 1883), in the first division of which the notes contain a marvelous collection of facts and authorities. He agrees in results with Adam Smith, Ricardo, Malthus, and Mill, but does not seem to have known much of Cairnes. This book, however, is only a first of four treatises eventually intended to include the political economy of (2) agriculture, (3) industry and commerce, and (4) the state and commune. The ablest contemporary of Roscher, who was probably the first to urge the historical method, is Karl Knies,(83) in “Die politische Oekonomie vom Standpunkte der geschichtlichen Methode” (1853, second edition, 1881-1883). The third of the group who founded the historical school is Bruno Hildebrand,(84) of Jena, author of “Die Nationalökonomie der Gegenwart und Zukunft” (1848). The German mind has always been familiar with the interference of the state, and a class of writers has arisen, not only advocating the inductive method, but strongly imbued with a belief in a close connection of the state with industry; and, inasmuch as the essence of modern socialism is a resort to state-help, this body of men, with Wagner at their head, has received the name of “Socialists(85) of the Chair,” and now wield a wide influence in Germany. Of these writers,(86) Wagner, Engel, Schmoller, Von Scheel, Brentano, Held, Schönberg, and Schäffle are the most prominent.
The historical school has received the adhesion of Émile de Laveleye,(87) in Belgium, and other economists in England and the United States. While Cliffe Leslie has been the most vigorous opponent of the methods of the old school, there have been many others of less distinction. Indeed, the period, the close of which is marked by J. R. McCulloch’s book, was one in which the old school had seemingly come to an end of its progress, from too close an adhesion to deductions from assumed premises. Mill’s great merit was that he began the movement to better adapt political economy to society as it actually existed; and the historical school will probably give a most desirable impetus to the same results, even though its exaggerated claims as to the true method(88) can not possibly be admitted.
Italian writers have not received hitherto the attention they deserve. After 1830, besides Rossi, who went to France, there was Romagnosi, who dealt more with the relations of economics to other studies; Cattanes, who turned to rural questions and free trade (combating the German, List); Scialoja, at the University of Turin; and Francesco Ferrara, also at Turin from 1849 to 1858. The latter was a follower of Bastiat and Carey, as regards value and rent, and at the same time was a radical believer in _laissez-faire_. Since the union of Italy there has been a new interest in economic study, as with us after our war. The most eminent living Italian economist is said to be Angelo Messedaglia, holding a chair at Padua since 1858. He has excelled in statistical and financial subjects, and is now engaged on a treatise on money, “Moneta,” of which one part has been issued (1882). Marco Minghetti and Fedele Lampertico stand above others, the former for a study of the connection of political economy with morals, and for his public career as a statesman; the latter for his studies on paper money and other subjects. Carlo Ferrais presented a good monograph on “Money and the Forced Currency” (1879); and Boccardo issued a library of selected works of the best economists, and a large Dictionary of Political Economy, “Dizionario universale di Economia Politica e di Commercio” (2 vols., second edition, 1875). Luigi Luzzati is a vigorous advocate of co-operation; and Elia Lattes has made a serious study of the early Venetian banks.
Political economy has gained little from American writers. Of our statesmen none have made any additions to the science, and only Hamilton and Gallatin can properly be called economists. Hamilton, in his famous “Report on Manufactures” (1791), shared in some of the erroneous conceptions of his day; but this paper, together with his reports on a national bank and the public credit, are evidences of a real economic power. Gallatin’s “Memorial in Favor of Tariff Reform” (1832) is as able as Hamilton’s report on manufactures, and a strong argument against protection. Both men made a reputation as practical financiers. “With few exceptions, the works produced in the United States have been prepared as text-books(89) by authors engaged in college instruction, and therefore chiefly interested in bringing principles previously worked out by others within the easy comprehension of undergraduate students.”(90) Of these exceptions, Alexander H. Everett’s “New Ideas on Population”(91) (1822), forms a valuable part in the discussion which followed the appearance of Malthus’s “Essay.” The writer, however, who has drawn most attention, at home and abroad, for a vigorous attack on the doctrines of Ricardo is Henry Charles Carey.(92) Beginning with “The Rate of Wages” (1835), he developed a new theory of value (see “Principles of Political Economy,” 1837-1840), “which he defined as a measure of the resistance to be overcome in obtaining things required for use, or the measure of the power of nature over man. In simpler terms, value is measured by the cost of reproduction. The value of every article thus declines as the arts advance, while the general command of commodities constantly increases. This causes a constant fall in the value of accumulated capital as compared with the results of present labor, from which is inferred a tendency toward harmony rather than divergence of interests between capitalist and laborer.”
This theory of value(93) he applied to land, and even to man, in his desire to give it universality. He next claimed to have discovered a law of increasing production from land in his “Past, Present, and Future” (1848), which was diametrically opposed to Ricardo’s law of diminishing returns. His proof was an historical one, that in fact the poorer, not the richer lands, were first taken into cultivation. This, however, did not explain the fact that different grades of land are simultaneously under cultivation, on which Ricardo’s doctrine of rent is based. The constantly increasing production of land naturally led Carey to believe in the indefinite increase of population. He, however, was logically brought to accept the supposed law of an ultimate limit to numbers suggested by Herbert Spencer, based on a diminution of human fertility. He tried to identify physical and social laws, and fused his political economy in a system of “Social Science” (1853), and his “Unity of Law” (1872). From about 1845 he became a protectionist, and his writings were vigorously controversial. In his doctrines on money he is distinctly a mercantilist;(94) but, by his earnest attacks on all that has been gained in the science up to his day, he has done a great service in stimulating inquiry and causing a better statement of results.
While undoubtedly the best known of American writers, yet, because of a prolix style and an illogical habit of mind, he has had no extended influence on his countrymen.(95) The effect of the civil war is now beginning to show itself in an unmistakable drift toward the investigation of economic questions, and there is a distinctly energetic tone which may bring new contributions from American writers. General Francis A. Walker,(96) in his study on “The Wages Question” (1876), has combated the wages-fund theory, and proposed in its place a doctrine that wages are paid out of the product, and not out of accumulated capital. Professor W. G. Sumner(97) is a vigorous writer in the school of Mill and Cairnes, and has done good work in the cause of sound money doctrines. Both General Walker and Professor Sumner hold to the method of economic investigation as expounded by Mr. Cairnes; although several younger economists show the influence of the German school. Professor A. L. Perry,(98) of Williams College, adopted Bastiat’s theory of value. He also accepts the wages-fund theory, rejects the law of Malthus, and, although believing in the law of diminishing returns from land, regards rent as the reward for a service rendered. Another writer, Henry George,(99) has gained an abnormal prominence by a plausible book, “Progress and Poverty” (1880), which rejects the doctrine of Malthus, and argues that the increase of production of any kind augments the demand for land, and so raises its value. His conclusions lead him to advocate the nationalization of land. Although in opposition to almost all that political economy has yet produced, his writing has drawn to him very unusual notice. The increasing interest in social questions, and the general lack of economic training, which prevents a right estimate of his reasoning by people in general, sufficiently account for the wide attention he has received.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.