------------ EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
Published by EH.NET (January 2007)
Jerry Evensky, _Adam Smith's Moral Philosophy: A Historical and
Contemporary Perspective on Markets, Law, Ethics, and Culture_.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. xi + 331 pp. $75
(cloth), ISBN: 0-521-85247-1.
Reviewed for EH.NET by Sasan Fayazmanesh, Department of Economics,
California State University, Fresno.
Books dealing with the history of economic thought generally fall
into two categories. One, which is relatively rare, critically
examines the writings of past economists in order to construct new
theories, theories which might save economics from the doldrums in
which it often finds itself. The other, which is quite prevalent,
tries to offer an interpretation of the writings of a long-gone
worldly philosopher, along with hundreds or perhaps thousands of past
interpretations. The interpretation usually is intended to be
different from the previous ones and tries to show where others might
have gone wrong. Jerry Evensky's _Adam Smith's Moral Philosophy_
definitely falls into the second category. It is yet another
interpretation of the relationship between Smith's _Theory of Moral
Sentiments_ (TMS) and _An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations_ (WN).
The work is divided into three parts: 1) "On Adam Smith's Moral
Philosophical Vision," 2) "On the Place of _The Wealth of Nations_ in
Adam Smith's Moral Philosophical Vision," and 3) "On Adam Smith's
Moral Philosophical Vision and Modern Discourse." The first part
deals mostly with Adam Smith's "vision," that is, the nature of
Smithian human nature and the instrumental role of political
institutions and religion in the evolution of mankind. The second
part is on the "progress of opulence." More specifically, the role
that WN plays in Smith's moral philosophy is examined in this part.
The last part tries to situate Smith's moral philosophy in modern
economic discourse. In particular, theories of Gary Becker --
representing the Chicago School -- Amartya Sen, and James Buchanan
are analyzed in light of Smith's "vision" in this part.
What differentiates Evensky's work from previous ones? Generally
speaking, interpretations of Adam Smith's writings, and particularly
the relation between the TMS and WN, fall into two major categories,
depending on the ideological inclination of the analyst. Those
admiring laissez faire -- and belonging mostly to the orthodox or
marginalist school -- seem to approve of the self-loving, greedy, and
merchant-minded man of WN. Those less sanguine about laissez faire --
and belonging mostly to the heterodox economics -- usually admire the
virtuous, benevolent, and empathic man of the TMS. In most cases
there is no bridge between the two Smithian men. That is, Smith's two
works usually are seen to be quite different in aims and arguments;
and interpreters either choose this or that work. But these are not
the only interpretations. Less frequently, we see a third
interpretation, one that tries to provide a bridge between different
Smithian actors (see, for example, Athol Fitzgibbons, "Adam Smith's
Theory of Human Nature," in _Evolutionary Economics and Human
Nature_, edited by John Laurent, 2003). According to this
interpretation, there is no real difference between the two men; they
are one and the same. To put it differently, the third interpretation
implies that Smith's TMS and WN are well integrated and arguments
presented in one do not contradict the other.
Evensky's _Adam Smith's Moral Philosophy_ falls in the third
category. He, too, tries to reconcile the two works of Adam Smith;
and he, himself, acknowledges the redundancy of this attempt (p. 26):
For more than two centuries, scholars have studied and offered
rich analyses of economic, political, social, legal, religious
and moral dimensions of Smith's moral philosophy, and some have explicitly focused on the connections between various
dimensions, such as moral and economics (Young, 1997) or law and economics (Malloy, 1994).
If this is the case, if so many scholarly and rich analyses of
Smith's works and their connection have been written for more than
two centuries, then why write another book?
Evensky's answer to the above question appears in the next sentence:
"However, for Smith, the whole is much greater than any one
connection or of the sum of these parts." Thus, it seems, the
differentia specifica of Evensky's interpretation of Smith's moral
philosophy is that it concentrates on the whole (p. 26):
The whole is what he finds in history. By examining the course
of humankind's history Smith develops his understanding of how
these particular parts interact in a general dynamic evolving
system. ... His is a simultaneous system in which all
dimensions -- social, political, and economic -- are
codetermined and constantly co-evolving. Thus to fully
appreciate Smith's moral philosophy, it must be
examined through the general frame he used to represent that
dynamic simultaneous system: the natural
selection/evolution/limit frame.
This interpretation of Smith's "whole" as a "dynamic simultaneous
system" involving "selection/evolution/limit frame" appears to be
what Evensky's interpretation of Smith is all about. The notion of
"selection/evolution/limit" is, of course, the result of reading Adam
Smith after Charles Darwin. That is, following Darwin, Smith's
conjecture concerning four stages of history is interpreted by
Evensky as "Smith's analysis of natural selection and evolution
through stages," which ultimately converges to "an ideal limiting
case: 'the liberal plan of equality, liberty and justice'" (pp.
11-12).
To the fans of Adam Smith, especially those opposed to the purely
orthodox reading of WN, Evensky's attempt might appear convincing. To
skeptics -- who believe that Smith's works, particularly WN, not only
are not fully integrated but are full of the contradictions,
illogical arguments, ambiguities and prejudices of nineteenth-century
European writers -- _Adam Smith's Moral Philosophy_ is yet another
attempt to gloss over Smith's limitations. It is also another effort
to make Smith's archaic theory of history appear respectable by a
Darwinian reading of it.
Sasan Fayazmanesh is the Chair of the Department of Economics at
California State University, Fresno. His latest book is _Money and
Exchange: Folktales and Reality_ (Routledge, 2006).
Copyright (c) 2007 by EH.Net. All rights reserved. This work may be
copied for non-profit educational uses if proper credit is given to
the author and the list. For other permission, please contact the
EH.Net Administrator ([log in to unmask]; Telephone: 513-529-2229).
Published by EH.Net (January 2007). All EH.Net reviews are archived
at http://www.eh.net/BookReview.
-------------- FOOTER TO EH.NET BOOK REVIEW --------------
EH.Net-Review mailing list
[log in to unmask]
http://eh.net/mailman/listinfo/eh.net-review
|