The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith - Essay Example

[Supervisor's The argument in "The Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith depends on the possibility of "failure". Why is this so What implications does this have In order to elaborate the argument in 'the wealth of nations' by Adam Smith depends on the possibility of failure, one has to has to study that Smith's observation of the nature and role of "modern" states must not be relegated to the list of constraints of failure and duties (do this, don't do that) which he wanted to impose on national agents in the Wealth of Nations. It is now fairly clear that Smith's insights into national policy formulation were spread across all three branches of his science of the legislator. The Theory of Moral Sentiments - badly illustrated as a theory of human action - is the first branch of the science, and in closing it promises "an account of the general principles of law and government, and of the various revolutions they have undergone in the different ages and periods of society" (Theory of Moral Sentiments: 342). The wealth of nations forms the second branch of Smith's science, and its historical sweep contains part, but only a diminutive part, of such an account. Possibly a manuscript was among the objects consigned to the flames by his literary executors. We do, nevertheless, have two sets of notes recording Smith's early Lectures on Jurisprudence; these notes provide an inadequately early and imperfect indication of what his missing branch of the science might have contained. In spite of their mistakes, these notes have significantly increased our awareness of Smith's intention to communicate an integrated science. Several problems like probability of failure have been deliberated to reside in the interstices between the three branches of Smith's science. Clearly it was at one time likely to refer to the Adam Smith problem of failure as the (challenging) relationship between the wealth of nations and the Theory of Moral Sentiments. I desire to see the limitations of his branches as giving rise to interpretive uncertainties rather than problems. As far as the state goes, the fundamental uncertainty arises from the fact that parts of the wealth of nations seem to take nations for granted (especially the introduction and plan of the work), yet national boundaries form a very strong threat to social progress throughout Smith's intellectual system: to the development of material welfare at different points in the wealth of nations and to the progress of benevolence in the Theory of Moral Sentiments. The jurisprudential constituent of Smith's science was never concluded, but his early lectures on the subject also propose that he regarded the nation state as a transitional form: one that already needed replacement in his day. Modern preoccupations with certain matters of policy have given Smith's economic analysis and associated prescriptions renewed prominence. The psychological judgments on which The Wealth of Nations is apparently based have also attracted attention and made familiar Smith's classic statement that: It is not from the generosity of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we look forward to our dinner, but from the view to their own interest. Nobody except a beggar chooses to rely mainly upon the munificence of his fellow citizens. Even a beggar does not depend upon it completely. (Wealth Of Nations I. ii. 2) Economists have interpreted this statement to mean that Smith was dealing with a restricted range of human experience in The Wealth of Nations-- what Alfred Marshall was later to describe as the study of mankind 'in the ordinary business life' ( 1956, p. 12). Looked at in this way, the suggestion that men act in a self interested manner can be seen as a hypothesis which makes the task of economic analysis more manageable. Exactly this point was made by Smith's contemporary, Sir James Steuart, when be observed: 'The principle of self-interest will serve as a general key to this enquiry; and it may, in one sense, be considered as the ruling principle of my subject, and may therefore be traced throughout the whole. This is the main spring . . .' ( 1966, p. 142). Yet Smith's imply. To begin with there is an historical or 'genetic' dimension to the argument, which is also to be found in the work of Sir James Steuart and David Hume. In Smith's case the argument features the deployment of four 'stages' or modes of subsistence; the stages of hunting, pasture, agriculture and commerce. These stages help Smith to establish a precise set of linkages between types of economy and corresponding social structures or forms of dependence. In The Wealth of Nations, the argument is deployed in Book V where he addresses the problems of defense and justice in a variety of historical settings. But perhaps the most striking example is provided in Book III where Smith sets out to trace the gradual emergence of the present establishments in Europe starting from the collapse of the Roman Empire in the West. In so far as Smith wrote as an economist, he was concerned with an institutional structure with a history. The argument had been first stated in Smith Lectures on Jurisprudence. But in the Lectures Smith adopted a wider historical sweep as compared to The Wealth of Nations and concentrated more on the broadly constitutional implications which were involved. Adopting a more pluralist approach than is evident in the sociological analysis, Smith tried to bring out the relationship between economic development and the form of government, thus explaining the background to the Revolution Settlement (cf. Skinner, 1982). While the historical process unfolded by virtue of the activities of individuals who were unconscious of the ends which these actions served to promote, the result was a new environment, economic and political, wherein the active disposition of man was to find new and profoundly significant forms of expression. The claim of freedom was not narrowly based. Smith also insisted that there was a moral dimension in suggesting that men ought to be permitted to enjoy the fruits of their own efforts, especially in the context of the fourth economic stage which had effectively broken down the bonds of dependence which characterized the feudal/agrarian situation. Smith went on to argue that the individual in the pursuit of his own interests should do so in a way which respects the interests and needs of others. He went further in suggesting that all actions, including the 'economic actions' of individuals or of corporations, are continually subject to the scrutiny of ourselves and others while being subject, further, to the discipline of accepted rules of social conduct, albeit with varying degrees of success. The nation state formed, in Smith's assessment of present-day sentiment, the most extensive social unit across which a person might do good offices, and across which he might receive them. The wealth of nations heavily strived, as we have witnessed, to break down this opinion: a nation's wealth relied closely upon that of its neighbors. War crimes, to inflict a modern term, were egregious exceptions to the growth of humanity, and the moral counterpart to grave damage (oppression of) foreign material interests. There is no straightforward way to prioritize the growth and extension of commerce and living standards, personal and political rights, as well as ethical behavior when viewing the growth of civilization across all of Smith's works. Each of them makes an appearance as what can intently be categorized as proximately fundamental and caused "variables" in each of the wealth of nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments, and LJ. Repressive nationalism cuts across all these dimensions. As Winch observes, with regard to the beneficial effects of a free trade in grain "Smith fortified his analysis of expediency with by an appeal to deliberations of justice" (1983A: 508, wealth of nations: 539). Works Cited Smith, Adam. (1776) 1909. Wealth of nations. In Harvard Classics. volume 10, edited by C. J. Bullock. New York: P. F. Collier. Read More