SHOE Archives

Societies for the History of Economics

SHOE@YORKU.CA

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Alexander Guerrero <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Societies for the History of Economics <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 2 Apr 2011 18:27:57 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (51 lines)
I would not add anything more, Pat, your assessment about Perelman excerpt
is impeccable.
Alexander G.
Economist, PhD.  

-----Original Message-----
From: Societies for the History of Economics [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On
Behalf Of Pat Gunning
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2011 10:58 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [SHOE] Adam Smith, the "Founding Father" of Modern Economics?

On 4/1/2011 1:05 PM, michael perelman wrote:
> This is from my new book, The Invisible Handcuffs.  I would like to 
> get some responses from listers.
.....
> Thereafter, Smith's influence steadily increased, along with the rise 
> of Procrustean market ideology. In fact, as one current Smith scholars 
> observed, "There were more new editions of The Wealth of Nations 
> published in the 1990s than in the 1890s, and more in the 1890s than 
> in the 1790s" (Young 2007).
>

Michael, it sounds to me like you have an ideological agenda.

The question for me is how Smith's work contributed to economic science,
defined as the production of knowledge about the benefits or harm to the
consumer role of various forms of market intervention. I take this to be the
traditional definition of the profession, which developed around the turn of
the twentieth century. I reject the post-socialism definition that developed
later and that assumes scarcity in an objective sense.

On the basis of what I call the traditional definition of economic science,
Smith's contribution was twofold. First he emphasized and gave a number of
examples of the higher productivity of a division of labor that results from
decentralized decision-making under market economy conditions (Smith's
system of natural liberty).  Second, he examined the effects of
restrictions, including government-sponsored monopoly, on the freedom of
enterprise.

The flavor of your description of Smith (associating him with a "Procrustean
market ideology") suggest that you either define economics differently or
that you have not considered how to define it. It is difficult to tell from
this excerpt.

--
Pat Gunning
Professor of Economics
Melbourne, Florida
http://www.nomadpress.com/gunning/welcome.htm

ATOM RSS1 RSS2