------------ 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