Adam Smith Lives!

Vanity at Economic Principals

David Warsh has a wonderful commentary on The "Vanity of the Philosopher" at Economic Principals.  He ends the review with important remarks about homogeneity vs. difference: 

Peart and Levy are perhaps a little optimistic about the capacity of the doctrine of equal competence to survive without modification in the twenty-first century. Previous attacks on consumer sovereignty were fought off handily enough -- Maurice Dobb by Abba Lerner, John Kenneth Galbraith by Hayek. But much more powerful forces are being marshaled for an assault from within technical economics -- the analysis of the effects of monopolistic competition, the insights of behavioral economics and evolutionary psychology, not to mention the discoveries of molecular biology. Cavalier assumptions about race and hierarchy are being supplanted by more narrowly-framed hypotheses about cognitive capacity.

The argument is terrifically important and it may be that there will eventually be a time when the evidence for difference is unequivocal and carefully framed.  For now, as Warsh rightly points out, Peart and Levy rely on Robbins' 1938 as if equality position:

I have always felt that, as a first approximation in handling questions relating to the lives and actions of larges masses of people, the approach which counts one man as one, and, on that assumption, asks which way lies the greatest happiness, is less likely to lead one astray than any of the absolute systems. I do not believe, and I never have believed, that in fact men are necessarily equal or should always be judged as such.  But I do believe that, in most cases, political calculations which do not treat them as if they were equal are morally revolting.

Every Man a Knave? The Mill-Macaulay Debate

This week end I joined a group of economists, philosophers and political scientist interested in constitutional political economy.  Though I know many 19th century texts, I was unfamiliar with some of the readings for this one from the Edinburgh Review:  a series of papers by James Mill (father of John Stuart) and T. B. Macaulay.  Though Mill and Macaulay were allies on some issues (both opposed slavery) and James Mill apparently recommended Macaulay for a position at the India Company, Macaulay tore into Mill's Theory of Government. Mill, Macaulay argued, chose "to look only at one-half of human nature" [the knavish half], and reasoned "on the motives which impel men to oppress and despoil others, as if they were the only motives by which men could possibly be influenced."  This matters for constitutional political economy because, if we are all knaves always, we may wish to design the constitutional structure accordingly.  Mill had, however, failed to take any step towards checks and balances, arguing instead that the interests of the governed and governing would be best aligned if the franchise were extended (but not to women), and election terms were brief.  Consensus has it that Macaulay won the debate hands down. 

Some photos at the conference:  (the conversation generally takes place before, during and after the sessions!)

J. S. Mill at 200

David Levy and I wrote this together to commemorate the birthday of J. S. Mill:

            A great liberal thinker, the English political economist and philosopher, John Stuart Mill, was born on May 20, 1806.  Mill is remembered as the author of A System of Logic, The Principles of Political Economy, Utilitarianism, On Liberty and The Subjection of Women (you can find these at the Online Library of Liberty, here.)  He was educated as a staunch utilitarian within the circle of his father’s friends that included Jeremy Bentham and David Ricardo. Mill followed his father in working at the British East India Company.  After a long relationship, he married Harriet Taylor in 1851.  From 1865 to 1868, he served as a Member of Parliament representing the City and Westminster.  In that capacity, he called for the extension of the franchise to women.  Late in the century, the early neoclassical economist, William Stanley Jevons, struggled under the “weight of authority” accorded to Mill.      

            On the occasion of Mill’s 200^th birthday, we celebrate his now largely-forgotten contribution to the coalition between the “dismal scientists” and “Exeter Hall”.  Exeter Hall was the political wing of 19^th century British evangelicalism and the center of the anti-slavery movement.  The “dismal science,” of course, is economics (more on that story at our Econlib series, here). 

            The coalition between political economists and evangelicals for the “sacred cause of black emancipation” was the target of Thomas Carlyle’s 1849 “Occasional discourse on the negro question.”  Here, Carlyle called for the re-enslavement of Jamaicans and a return to the regime of the “beneficent whip.”  Mill’s immediate response to Carlyle defended the rights of all people to order their own lives.  Mill was now in the forefront of the struggle against slavery.  Later, in the so-called “Governor Eyre Controversy” of Jamaica, violence broke out as former slaves were denied the rule of law. Evangelicals then chose Mill as their spokesperson on the Jamaica Committee, to speak for their common cause of the rule of law for all people as they tried to bring the island’s governor to justice. 

            This common cause between economists and the religious community has been forgotten.  Economists instead now present economic doctrines as a body of scientific knowledge sufficient to guide the policies of nations if only regular people would trust the economic experts. Mill’s defense of free speech in On Liberty hinged instead upon the claim that a free discussion of ordinary ideas would give such teaching greater motivational force.

            Mill was not seen as a Christian by the evangelicals who elected him to speak for them.  In Utilitarianism, he named the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule as the perfect statements of utilitarianism.  Mill’s utilitarianism focused on the happiness of the many through choices freely made in the context of discussion and experience.  That focus separated him from Christians on the issue of contraception.  His encounter with a strangled baby on a walk in the park persuaded him at a very early age that happiness within the institution of marriage could not be accomplished if people saw no alternative but to destroy their children. And, of course, he had much more to say about the institution of marriage.  As married women were not entitled to own property, Mill urged legal reforms to that institution.  Since women were people like men, he insisted that they possessed the capacity to vote.

            Mill supported wider access to contraceptive information.   In 1877, such access became British law as a result of the celebrated trial of Annie Besant and Charles Bradlaugh.  Annie Besant, conducting her own defense, quoted Mill’s Principles at some length to support her case for wide access as a means to improve human happiness.  Charles Darwin, by contrast, vigorously objected to wider access and wrote to tell Bradlaugh that he would not testify in their favor.  Access to contraceptive information and the ability to control family size within marriage became the teaching of Protestant Christianity.  In 1930, the Anglican communion also came to agree with Mill’s earlier teaching and authorized contraception for married people.

            Mill’s role in the classical liberal tradition is less well known than it once was.  His hopeful words regarding voluntary socialism have been well-understood.  His doctrine that the “laws of distribution” differ significantly from the “laws of production,” has been misunderstood.  For Mill never held that social arrangements – institutions – may be altered with no impact on production. But these are matters of economic theory that concern only a few.  Mill’s concern was for the many.

Sandra Peart

David Levy

The inscription on Mill's grave

Huei-Chun Su, a graduate student working on JS Mill at the University of Exeter, sent this to me today:

Standing in the grave yard and staring at Mill’s last words, I was really moved by this old man’s earnest love to his wife. For a moment, I couldn’t speak. (At the end, I took a picture with Mill with a very serious face. If you ask me why my face in the photo is completely different from the one I took in front of the map outside the grave yard. That’s why. Even if you are a fan of Mill, you won’t want to be excited, which makes you frivolous. You will only want to respect him and show your compassion for him.)

Su will present some of her research on Mill and Hayek at this year's Summer Institute.  She was a Young Scholar at the History of Economics Society annual meeting last year.

Here's her photo of the inscription:

Avignon, France

The grave of Harriet Taylor Mill and JS Mill in Avignon, France. 

Almost 200

20 May is approaching.  I'll have more to say about the importance of JS Mill.  I've noted before that he was a frequent target of the popular press, including Punch magazine.  Here, Mill is featured holding the cup of logic alongside the pugnacious Quaker, John Bright.

Summer Institute for the History of Economics

The preliminary program for the Summer Institute is now online at GMU's Center for Study of Public Choice.  A few  highlights:

Once again this year, we will hold the Summer Institute directly following the Public Choice Outreach Conference.  SI is July 10-15th.  2 speakers will speak at both conferences:  Joe Persky and Ali Khan.  A number of SI applicants are also applying to attend the Outreach conference.

Our first day -- on themes from classical liberalism -- will begin with a conversation between James Buchanan and Gordon Tullock on writing the Calculus of Consent.  This should be terrific.  We hope also to have  a display from the GMU Libraries on the archival material they hold relating to the book.

We'll have presentations by graduate students from Exeter, Notre Dame, GMU, and Paris I.  In addition, we've added a day for selected undergraduates to present their research, on Saturday.

We have speakers from the USA, Chile, France, England, and Australia.  Additional confirmed participants will attend from Italy, England, USA, Chile, Australia, Holland, and Switzerland. The History of Economics Society, GMU, and the Earhart Foundation support the participation in the institute by students from the New School, Berkeley, Exeter, Paris, MSU, Dickinson, GMU, and Notre Dame.

The Institute will also host 3 dinners, each with a working theme.  The first (Monday) is on how the Public Choice History Project that David Levy and I have begun.  On Wednesday we'll talk about the future.  On Saturday, we'll wrap things up with a presentation of our recent work on the expert and economics.  I hope to have the dinners on the lawn (outside) at the Buchanan House.

This promises to be a very good week.  If you wish to attend, let me know.

Galbraith and the obituaries

I wanted to wait to see various obituaries for J. K. Galbraith before posting something here.  Though he and I both grew up in southern Ontario and he was a household name by the time I was old enough to listen to the dinner conversation, I don't know his work well.  His influence was non existent on the graduate school curriculum when I was at Toronto, though my grandmother bought The Age of Uncertainty for me when I told her I was majoring in economics as an undergraduate.

Here are some brief assessments:

"Economist Held a Mirror to Society" "iconoclastic economist, teacher, and diplomat and an unapologetically liberal member of the political and academic establishment"  -- NYT (30 April)

"John Kenneth Galbraith was by far the most famous economic thinker of his day." BBCNews (30 April)

"influential liberal economist, best-selling author and former presidential advisor" -- Reuters (30 April).

"Visionary economist who defined, and defied, conventional wisdom" -- Guardian (May 1)

This isn't exhaustive but a unified portrait emerges already:  there seems to be wide consensus about the defining characteristics of Galbraith's work. 

The economist for whom I've read a great number of published obituaries, is W. S. Jevons.  And here there's somewhat more variation in terms of trying to define the contribution.  (There is, throughout, conviction that Jevons was a principled, decent human being.)  The excerps below are from volume iv of my edited collection, W.S. Jevons:  critical responses (Routledge, 2003).

"Professor Jevons was without doubt one of the most eminent philosophers of his day," (ManEx&Times, 16 August 1882).

"Mr Jevons has been known generally as by far the most able and original of our living logicians..." (The Economist, 19 Aug 1882)

"an experimental genius, with singularly high logical, mathematical and philosophical powers." (The Spectator, 19 Aug 1882)

"In him an antique boldness of theory was complemented by the cautious spirit of the Baconian age" (FY Edgeworth, in The Academy, 26 Aug 1882)

"his reputation as a thinker and writer may be permitted to rest on his investigations of the principles of science and his contributions to a calculus of deductive reasoning." (Proceedings of the Royal Society). 

Though, today, Jevons is often thought of in terms of the marginal principle, other contributions overshadowed his exchange equations at the time of his death 1882.