----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
In the according chapter Pertz quotes (without proper reference) private 
notes of Frhr. v. Stein, which are said to be written during his exile in 
Austria from 1809 onwards. Mainly these notes reflect Steins opinion on 
specific thoughts of Adam Smith, often presenting a counter-argument. (“Aus 
der Zeit des Aufenthalts in Brünn haben sich schriftliche Betrachtungen 
über die Weltbegebenheiten so wie über staatswissenschaftliche Gegenstände 
erhalten, welche zugleich Steins fortwährende Beschäftigung mit bedeutenden 
Werken von Smith, Ganilh [?], Herder kund geben und seine zum Teil davon 
abweichenden Überzeugungen aussprechen”, p. 442). 
 
A statement concerning protectionism can be found on pp. 462-3 (rather than 
461-2). It refers to “Smith Th. II, p. 364” and tries to invalidate the 
problem that protectionism leads to a less efficient production (and 
therefore a lower national income). This may well be, states Stein, but the 
additional money to be spend on a more expensive home production is only 
drawn off the consumption of “superfluous” commodities (i.e. foreign 
luxuries; this refers to the German situation: Foreign goods are considered 
to be mainly colonial products, whereas “indispensable” goods like basic 
foodstuffs, linen, wool etc. are produced in Germany anyway), therefore 
improving the balance of payments (“Ist die einländische Production 
theurer, so wird dadurch zwar das Einkommen verringert, diese mehrere 
Ausgabe wird aber nur den Genüssen überflüssiger Gegenstände entzogen”, p. 
463). 
 
More so, a protectionist country may produce many goods that it would not 
have produced under the circumstances of a free market (“Die Nation wird 
alsdann manches Entbehrliche sich entziehen müssen, sie wird aber auch 
vieles produciren was sie sonst bey freyer Concurrenz nicht producirt haben 
würde”, p. 463) – so this indeed is advocating protectionism under the idea 
of developing a country. Now the catch is that there is nothing to be found 
in the whole statement on what to do if finally a country IS developed. And 
it is certainly not a good assumption that Stein would advocate laissez 
faire then. 
 
Anyway, Stein - and, as I suppose, other German theorists with him - is not 
completely opposed to Smith but disagrees on certain arguments. This seems 
to be so not as much because of the relative underdevelopment of the German 
states (in comparison to Britain), but as a colonial power like Britain 
could benefit much more from open markets then the German states who had 
comparatively less to offer to the world market. 
 
Alexander Engel 
Göttingen University, Germany 
 
 
 
 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]