Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Existence of Economic Thought Prior to Adam Smith
Although Adam Smith is often
regarded as the father of economics, there were many developments in economics
before Adam Smith. In fact, some argue
that Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations
does not include a single original idea and is merely a collection of economic
thought that was already developed (Backhouse 130). Although often ignored, the economic thought
before Adam Smith was important and much of the thought is still relevant
today. In the ancient world, for
example, Plato advanced the idea of efficiency and advocated specialization as
a means to being efficient (18). In
business, and markets in general, there is always the concern with being efficient
and the debate on whether or not workers should specialize still takes place. In the middle ages, Ibn Kaldun put forth the
idea of the process of economic development, describing how a nation
transitions from peak points to trough points (38). This is indicative of the business cycle
where the economy is constantly going through high points and low points. In seventeenth-century England, William Petty
compiled a list of national accounts and was able to make estimates of the
figures on a national level (69).
Compiling national accounts lists and estimates is, of course, still
used today. While these are only a few
examples, there are many other areas of important economic theories developed
before the time of Adam Smith. Yet Adam
Smith still receives that majority of the credit for the beginnings of
economics. Why these earlier writers are
often ignored, I am not sure. It could
be because the ideas were developed here and there and not on a larger scale. Adam Smith was able to pull all of these
ideas together into a collection, and that could be a reason for his
praise. Adam Smith also wrote his Wealth of Nations at the same time as
the Industrial Revolution was underway.
As the Industrial Revolution is regarded as the reason for large
economic growth in various nations, Adam Smith’s writings seem to coincide with
this progress and advancement. It could
also be due to the fact that, as an individualistic society motivated by
profit, some of the early economists who wrote about the harmful effects of
self-interest and the accumulation of too much wealth do not appear to accurately
represent some current views of economics. Although Adam Smith was concerned with having a moral society, he also advocated self-interest and explained how the two could be related.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Having read about all the economists and their ideas prior to Adam Smith, I was also unsure as to why it seems he is deemed credit as the Father of Economics. I have been researching Joseph Schumpeter for my paper and even a biography about him written by Richard Swedberg stated, "Adam Smith had in Schumpeter's mind synthesized the ideas of many other economists, but was not a particularly original thinker of his own." Schumpeter would probably not agree that Adam Smith be the Father of Economics. The main reason I can see him as being credited for this title is because he put together a very large compilation of not only his ideas but also the ideas of other economists. There also seems to be a bias toward Western thinkers and this goes back to our discussion in class of how the ideas of Non-Western thinkers seemed to go by the wayside. I can’t really think of other reasons as to why other economists are not credited for their ideas before Adam Smith. Before taking this class, I had only really thought Adam Smith was the founder of economics and never heard of the economists we have talked about in class. Most principles of economics courses simply teach that Adam Smith is the Father of Economics (for the sake of time) and it seems as if no one before him came up with any economic ideas. I obviously know now that is not the case.
ReplyDeleteConsidering I'm doing my final paper on Adam Smith I have also read and tried to better understand why he was credited as the father of economics. I believe writing his Wealth of nations piece during the time of the industrial revolution played a significant part in further crediting Adam Smith. Obviously there were many economic theories developed before Smith's time, however I think we should recognize that he was the first Economist to incorporate so many others opinions and views into his own. Adam Smith is truly a steward of economics who wanted to learn and take in as much economic perspective as he could during his time. Therefore I feel it is unfair to condemn him on advancing his own knowledge simply by studying people who came before him. Everyone who is new to the job looks to someone who has been there before for support and guidance. Smith happened to be a master of this art and by tying in everything he learned with his own personal perspective and views he was named the father of economics.
ReplyDeleteReading your thoughts on Adam Smith and the possible reasoning for his accreditation of many concepts, I too agree that the breadth and compilation of Smith's ideas served as part of the catalyst for the rise of his title that is generally given to him, as the "Father of Modern Economics." His vocabulary and form of explanation made his Wealth of Nations widespread in markets outside of the field of academic economics. I also agree with the fact that the focus for the majority of history has been on the economists of the western world. Until this course, I had honestly never read or heard mention of Ibn Khaldun, or the other Eastern economists, who wrote of topics that Smith covered later on. While I have not written on Adam Smith extensively since my freshman year, we looked in depth at his approach to economics in Ethics and Capitalism. This experience with Smith and the Industrial Revolution has led me to the conclusion, that in addition to the focus on western economists and Smith's style, one of the major contributing factors to his rise was the application of the Wealth of Nations to the Industrial Revolution. Giving cause to allow markets to "self-regulate" without government interference, I can imagine that any entrepreneur or businessman would greedily grasp at the work of Adam Smith. Finding a reason to justify the self-interest in seeking large monetary success that we have discussed recently, I can see a connection with the participants in the market to gain legitimacy and ethical rights to their behavior in not providing for those less fortunate and preventing any mention of government intervention. Because, after all, according to Smith, the economy is self-regulating and an "invisible hand" will right the market in the long run.
ReplyDelete