Jürg Schneider

250 years ago…

…on March 9, 1776, “An Inquiry into the natu­re and cau­se of the Wealth of Nati­ons” by Adam Smith was published. The first edi­ti­on prin­ted in Lon­don in 500 or 750 copies has beco­me a cult and coll­ec­tor object sel­ling for up to USD 200’000. Never mind – the book remains a key text of poli­ti­cal eco­no­my and is a fasci­na­ting read.

…on March 9, 1776, “An Inquiry into the natu­re and cau­se of the Wealth of Nati­ons” by Adam Smith was published. The first edi­ti­on prin­ted in Lon­don in 500 or 750 copies has beco­me a cult and coll­ec­tor object sel­ling for up to USD 200’000. Never mind – the book remains a key text of poli­ti­cal eco­no­my and is a fasci­na­ting read.

As could be expec­ted, the anni­ver­sa­ry prompt­ed some opi­ni­on pie­ces reflec­ting on the rele­van­ce of “Wealth of Nati­ons”.

Jason Fur­man in the New York Times high­lights the fun­da­men­tal opti­mism of Smith’s eco­no­mic phi­lo­so­phy. Smith was “distrustful of struc­tures that keep indi­vi­du­als from free­ly pur­suing their own inte­rests” in the eco­no­mic sphe­re – and he show­ed “how ordi­na­ry peo­p­le, pur­suing ordi­na­ry lives, could ste­adi­ly make socie­ties richer, fai­rer and freer – if powerful insti­tu­ti­ons like govern­ments, guilds or lar­ge busi­nesses got out of their way”.

This is why, accor­ding to Fur­man, the “Wealth of Nati­ons” pres­ents “some of the clea­rest gui­dance for this moment” – one of its main inten­ti­ons was to widen the cir­cle of eco­no­mic actors par­ti­ci­pa­ting in the eco­no­my, based on their respec­ti­ve self-inte­rest. That is inde­ed rele­vant, and Fur­man tries to posi­ti­on Smith in some kind of midd­le ground, uncon­vin­ced of the par­ti­san rea­dings by “lais­sez-fai­re” con­ser­va­ti­ves on the one hand and libe­rals or the left, worried about “anti-social greed” pro­pel­led by eco­no­mic libe­ra­lism, on the other.

Ser­gio Aiol­fi in the Neue Zür­cher Zei­tung also points to Smith’s inten­ti­on – a poli­cy objec­ti­ve in fact – to include a wider ran­ge of eco­no­mic actors  but he under­lines the dif­fe­ren­ces in histo­ri­cal con­text to today. Smith put two fac­tors at the core of eco­no­mic pro­spe­ri­ty: advan­ced divi­si­on of labor, lea­ding to com­mo­di­ty sur­plus, and trade, both in tan­dem pro­du­cing more wealth for the who­le socie­ty. Yet Smith did not arti­cu­la­te a “theo­ry of growth” fit for today’s eco­no­mic chal­lenges, and fac­tors such as sci­ence, tech­no­lo­gy, inno­va­ti­on were not in his focus. The bak­er, the but­cher and the bre­wer – the empi­ri­cal stuff in Smith – were not expo­sing nor nee­ding the con­stant search for inno­va­ti­on that cha­rac­te­ri­zes today’s eco­no­mic actors.

Fur­man grasps a cur­rent socie­tal moment of anxie­ty facing de-indu­stria­lizati­on, the rise of AI and, in gene­ral, inno­va­ti­on dri­ven by lar­ge up-front capi­tal invest­ment. The­se “powerful struc­tures” would have worried Smith pro­ba­b­ly as much as did con­tem­po­ra­ry French abso­lu­tism with its focus on levy­ing taxes, gold reser­ves, trade sur­plu­ses, and the exch­an­ge sphe­re in gene­ral.

Mer­can­ti­lism infor­med much of eco­no­mic thin­king in France of that peri­od when that nation’s eco­no­my was alre­a­dy in dire waters. Even­tual­ly, eco­no­mic fac­tors were a major fac­tor con­tri­bu­ting to the “Stor­ming of the Bastil­le” on July 14, 1789. Read Eric Vuil­lard’s 2016 novel “14 Juil­let” to get an idea how that was like!

Refe­ren­ces:

Aiol­fi, Ser­gio. “Die Leh­ren des Metz­gers, des Brau­ers und des Bäckers“. NZZ, March 9, 2021, p. 21.

Fur­man, Jason. “This Is the Moment Adam Smith Has Been Wai­ting For”. March 9, 2021.

Vuil­lard, Eric (2016). 14 Juil­let. Arles: Actes Sud (Ger­man trans­la­ti­on: Ber­lin, 2019)

Jason Fur­man: Smith show­ed “how ordi­na­ry peo­p­le, pur­suing ordi­na­ry lives, could ste­adi­ly make socie­ties richer, fai­rer and freer – if powerful insti­tu­ti­ons like govern­ments, guilds or lar­ge busi­nesses got out of their way”