----------------- 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]