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