Adam Smith, with An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of
the Wealth of Nations published in 1776 is unanimously hailed
as the founder of economics as a social science and also of
“economic liberalism” or “capitalism” as it is called to contrast it
with “socialism”, the latter propagated by K. Marx at a later date.
The group of economists that followed A.Smith, including
such notable names as D.Ricardo, N.W.Senior, John Stuart Mill,
culminating in Alfred Marshall (1890: Principles of Economics)
is called the “Classical School” or alternately the “Manchester
School” to refer to their place of origin. Their macroeconomic
system is called the “Classical System” (Schumpeter 1954; Roll
1992; Hiç 1994, Paya 1997; Ackley 1961, Branson 1989; Froyen
1990, etc.). Having accepted the Malthusian law of population
(T.Robert Malthus: 1798 Essays on the Principle of Population)
D. Ricardo had come up with a model in which growth eventually
comes to a halt, moving to that point, however, all along at full
employment equilibrium (Baumol and Turvey 1970, Hiç 1994).
This was also in line with the views of Adam Smith. Marshall had
introduced the concept of elasticities and used the partial method
of analysis. In contrast, Leon Walras, in his 1874-7: Eléments
d’Economie Pure ou Theorie de La Richesse Sociale (1. ed).
used the general equilibrium approach to prove that the economy
arrives automatically to full employment equilibrium, following
Adam Smith and the Classical School.
This book offers a summary of the basic views and
conclusions of Adam Smith concerning economic regime, as is
also followed by the rest of the members of the Classical School:
In a milieu of perfect competition prevailing in all the markets or
sectors of the economy, including the labor market, full
employment equilibrium will be achieved automatically. This
equilibrium will, therefore, also maximize the welfare of the
workers because the market wage rate, with no intrusions from
the government or the unions, will have ensured full employment.
Hence, there is no need for interventionism, that is, for the state
to intervene prices, wages, channeling of investments and
economic decisions in general.
Based on the principle of “absolute advantage”, Adam
Smith also argued in favor of free international trade, leading to
specialization and increased growth rate and welfare of both
parties. Therefore, there would also be no need for
“protectionism”.
The argument for free trade was soon generalized by D.
Ricardo by basing it on the general principle of “comparative
advantage” (1817: Principles of Political Economy and
Taxation).
Thus, with Adam Smith we had a strong case for noninterventionism
and non-protectionism based on the assumption
that perfectly competitive markets will automatically attain full
employment as well as foreign trade balance.
Adam Smith called it the “invisible hand” and stressed that
in a competitive economy all individuals working for their selfinterests
would finally produce an equilibrium of maximum
welfare for the society as a whole. J. B. Say (1903: Traité
d’Economie Politique), the defender of the Classical School in
France referred to it as the “law of the markets”.
1776, the year the Wealth of Nations appeared is
particularly meaningful. It is a date when the newly increasing
“entrepreneurs” or industrialists were becoming complaintive
about the widespread interventionism and protectionism that all
respective governments implemented to advance their own
interests at the expense of other countries. The result was an allround
failure to maximize trade, specialization and growth
because of severe impediments on international trade and on the
decisions of entrepreneurs. This economic regime, called
“mercantilism” by Adam Smith had been implemented since 15.
up to 18. century. The more prominent implementers and writers
on mercantilism were J.B. Colbert (1619-1693) and Josiah Child
(1630-1699). Previously, the laissez-faire argument could not
hold ground because opponents (physiocrats) had not come up
with a scientific analysis of economic events (Schumpeter 1954).
The argument of the mercantilists, simplified and
shortened, ran as follows: respective countries all sought to
maximize their own “interests”, which meant the amount gold
that flowed to the coffers of their Central Banks through trade
surplus, that is, excess of exports over imports, in a milieu of
implementation of the gold money standard. Therefore, they
intervened to encourage exports and production of exportable
goods and to restrict imports through various means of
protectionism and interventionism. And these interventions and
protectionisms, in effect, suffocated profit-seeking activities of
the entrepreneurs while the curtailment of the growth of
international trade adversely affected the income growth of all
countries concerned, including those which applied protectionism
and quantitative import restrictions.
In the field of international policy mercantilists’ approach
also encouraged colonialism, or imperialism. All major European
countries sought to capture undeveloped countries as colonies to priced industrial goods.
The 18. century during the last quarter of which the Wealth
of Nations was written was, on the other hand, rife with progress
in technology and industrialization (the “industrial revolution”, as
called by Arnold Toynbee). It was during this century that the
steam engine was invented, the steamboat was put to use, the
railroad system was started, textiles began to be manufactured by
machine and electricity was developed. All this led to increasing
number of industrialists or entrepreneurs, all weary of excessive
government intrusions to the markets. The pioneering country in
industrial growth and economic regime calling for noninterventionism
and non-protectionism was UK. It was also by the
end of the same century (1789-1799) that the French Revolution
took place, introducing democracy. Democracy had taken place
slightly earlier in the USA and UK and it spread to the rest of the
major developed European countries at the time.
However, an important question soon arose. It was
concerned with free international trade and temporary
protectionism for less developed (industrialized) countries. A
notable German economist-politician F.List (1841: Das
Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie) stated that for the
case of Germany which was relatively less industrialized
compared to Britain, free international trade would prevent the
development of German industry to become competitive. He,
therefore, argued in favor of “protection” for a temporary period
up until the German industry is developed and becomes
competitive.
This argument was incorporated into the Classical System
as the “infant-industry” argument by J. S. Mill. This argument
was, in fact, also most meaningful for less developed countries
(LDCs) in their early stages of development following W.W. 2.
But the argument is for a “temporary and decreasing protection” rather than “permanent and absolute protectionism” that the
governments of LDCs generally fell into.
Another important question was the assumption in A.
Smith and the Classical School of the existence of “perfectly
competitive” markets for the “invisible hand” to work.
But the assumptions behind perfect competition were hard
to find in the actual world of industry. K. Marx had a radical view
in this respect that private entrepreneurs would, in short time,
develop into monopolies. But the governments, in actual practice,
issued laws to prevent the establishment of monopolies, trusts and
cartels as was advocated by the Classical economists. What
theoretically was important was that the assumption of
homogeneous goods produced by all the industrialists was never
met. - Based on empirical observances, this led to another
correction to bring economic theory and economic regime
propositions closer to reality. Pioneer efforts in this field came
from Joan Robinson (1933: The Economics of Imperfect
Competition) and E.H. Chamberlin (1933: The Theory of
Monopolistic Competition). While Marxists insisted on the
unavoidable evolution of monopolies and also considered the
advertisement costs of monopolistic competition and of
oligopolistic firms a social waste, a consensus was reached on this
issue with the help of the above-mentioned works as well as those
by T.Scitovsky (1951: Welfare and Competition), N.Kaldor (1939
EJ, “Welfare Proposition in Economics”, J.M. Clark (1940 AER
June, “Towards a Concept of Workable Competition”),
W.J.Fellner (1948: Competition Among the Few: Oligopoly and
similarly Market Structures); and others. The consensus was that
markets displaying properties of monopolistic competition as well
as oligopolistic markets that are competitive can still maximize
welfare such that there would be no need for state intervention in
these markets. In fact, any government intervention may harm,
rather than improve welfare. -Another major critical problem faced was the persistent
occurrence of business cycles giving rise to unemployment during
the depression phases of the cycle; a phenomenon contrary to the
automatic full employment equilibrium conclusions of A. Smith
and the Classical School. According to the Classical School –
excepting the Ricardian growth model accepting the Malthusian
law of population which eventually halts growth – the economies
would continuously grow at full-employment equilibrium with no
limits.
The existence, in actual practice, of business cycles was
tried to be explained unsatisfactorily with mistakes made in
monetary policy and in the changes in volume of credit supplied
by banks e.g. A. Marshall (1923: Money, Credit and Commerce),
and by others. Marx had viewed the business cycles as an inherent
property of the capitalist system but could not make a
scientifically acceptable explanation.
Thus, the Great Depression broke out in 1929 at a time
when economic theory lacked a scientific explanation of the
business cycle.
According to Marx, the depression was inevitable. The
Classical economists, in turn, offered only lowering of wages to
remedy unemployment and that was to no avail. The
governments, both the US and the European, all curtailed
government expenditures in view of the decrease in tax revenues
in order to avoid budget deficits; they also curtailed their exports.
Hence, because of both these wrong policies the depression
deepened.
Only after 1933 F.D. Roosevelt became president of the
USA the first time as a member of the Democrat Party that the US
put into effect the New Deal to alleviate the plight of the workers
and the farmers. And this policy also alleviated to some limited
degree the severity of the depression. The depression caused a distrust of the Classical macroeconomic system and its conclusion
of automatic full employment.
Thus, we had what was termed by L.Klein (1947) the
Keynesian revolution”. With his book General Theory of
Employment Interest and Prices published in 1936, Keynes
discarded the Classical macroeconomic system, building his own
based on more realistic, verified and verifiable relations between
macroeconomic variables; and the conclusion he reached was that
the economy would not give full employment equilibrium
automatically. Instead, the tendency would be a less than full
employment equilibrium, that is, involuntary unemployment. To
attain full employment, it was required that the state should
intervene at the macro policy level, by means of monetary and
fiscal policy. Monetary policy of increasing money supply to
reduce interests’ rates, hence, to raise private investments could
be more effective in fighting a recession but ineffective to avoid
a depression. Fiscal policy, lowering taxes to increase disposable
private income, hence private consumption, but particularly
straight-forward increase of government expenditures, on the
other hand, would be the more effective measure against
depression. During and after W.W.2 all Western countries
implemented Keynesian macroeconomic policies and enjoyed, till
the petroleum crisis of 1973, relatively stable growth, with both
inflation and recessions held in control. As a later consensus, it
was realized that taxation as a flexible anti-cyclical policy was
politically difficult to implement; it was particularly difficult to
raise taxes once lowered. Even government expenditures as anticyclical
policy created political problems. Hence, most countries
sufficed with monetary policy to check both inflation and also
recession, and monetary policy was implemented by an
independent Central Bank which, however, could always contact
the government.
What did the Keynesian revolution imply for the validity
of the Classical School and the liberal economic regime of nonintervention
which the Classical School advocated? Definitely the
Classical macroeconomic system was proven wrong, just as also
had been the conclusion that it would automatically maximize the
welfare of the workers. But it should be underlined that Keynesian
recipe of government intervention was confined to the macro
level. Otherwise, Keynes assumed that with workable
competition prevailing in all production sectors of the economy,
there would be no need for any intervention at the micro or
sectoral level. Like the welfare measures implemented for the
workers, Keynesian interventionist policies confined to the
macroeconomic level may have created important exceptions to
the purist laissez-faire view. But, in fact, it too resulted in saving
capitalism and made it resilient against both inflations as well as
recessions and depressions.