======================= 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]
|