======================= HES POSTING ================= 
 
I welcome the new thread. There is a question whether we on the HES 
list are competent to discuss what is, really, a matter of economic 
history rather than the history of economic thought, but it is surely 
relevant to us because many economic writers have held views on the 
origins of "commercial societies" (in C18 terms) or "capitalism" 
(post-Marx). It is an important context, particularly to pre-C19 
writing. 
 
I agree with almost all that Mary and Pat say. Mary - I agree that C18 
writers were constrained by the culture of their day. I would be the 
last to deny it. Mary is absolutely right to say that Smith focussed on 
market-as-process in relation to institutions. Mary, Pat - markets 
require an institutional framework. I agree. Changes in the law and 
other institutions matter. That is what much early economic writing is 
about. 
 
Let me suggest a first distinction. We can separate the emergence of a 
market-dominated system in Europe from its spread or imposition 
elsewhere. In colonies, say, a legal/institutional framework was 
sometimes quite consciously designed. That is Marys example. But it was 
derivative of the earlier development in Europe. 
 
The fact that markets of some sort had existed from the earliest times 
meant that some institutions were always there, open to expansion and 
transformation. Think of some key changes - e.g. the abolition of 
serfdom and the creation of a market in freely alienable land. I think 
I am right to say that these happened, in England at least, so-to-speak 
by stealth. Nobody abolished serfdom. It faded out, because it 
no-longer served the needs of the dominant class. (This is what Smith 
said, in effect.) The market for land was boosted by the abolition of 
the monasteries, for mainly non-economic reasons (or at least, for 
reasons which included short-run economic gains for some, but not a 
conscious desire to change the system). Much C16 - C18 writing is about 
how a state can grow rich by commerce, but it looks to examples of 
already-successful commercial centres. It is a reflection of what was 
already happening. 
 
One wouldn't expect the Hume-Smith story to survive in all details 
after 200+ years, but it still looks intelligible and intelligent. The 
driving force, in that story, is a growing range of (market) 
opportunities which (slowly) undermined obstacles and remade 
institutions. Smith, particularly, emphasized the way institutions 
clung on and obstructed change - guilds, primogeniture, etc. 
 
What I am suggesting is that although conscious transformation of 
institutions had a role, it was, and had to be, largely derivative. 
No-one could conceive of a market-based system before they had seen it 
coming into existence. 
---------------------- 
Tony Brewer ([log in to unmask]) 
University of Bristol, Department of Economics 
8 Woodland Road, Bristol BS8 1TN, England 
Phone (+44/0)117 928 8428 
Fax (+44/0)117 928 8577 
 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]