Forsiden - Universitetet i Oslo



Econ4950 Lecture Note 2 26 Jan. 2011

1. Introductiory remark

We are moving along a timeline starting from Greek philosophers in -4C and jump over a very long interval in history to come to the next topic.

What you learn today, ten years into 21C, naturally is rooted in 20C but very much will also have strong roots in 19C. Some may even have roots before 19C. In your textbok stuff you may struggle over indifference curves in demand theory or isoquants in production theory, or elementary macro model or ISLM or a 2-by-2 game theory model or the simplest formulae in growth theory and you really have little idea how they have originated or where the concepts and terms have come from. The textbook will only very rarely tell you. Often the history behind these building bricks for economists turn out to be quite intricate. Occasionally, it happens that a practitioner in some field of economics looks backs in the old books, takes the bother of reading what was originally said and gets an inspiration for how the theory can be taken further.

We will continue in England 17C with William Petty. Arguably the two most names we skip are Thomas Aquinas c.1225-74 and Nicole Oresme c.1320-1382. They are both great intellectuals and well covered in Backhouse. Aquinas interprets and applies the Aristotelian theory of just price and refines the reasoning to the situation of his time. Oresme may similarly be said to apply Aristotelian thinking on the origin of money and the uses of money to the situation at his time.

We note in passing that Backhouse, indeed also Sandmo, are centered very much Engalnd and France with USA coming in at a late stage. The most important omission implied by this is the cameralism (Cameralwissenschaft) in the German dominated part of Europe.

In addition we deal in this chapter with Richard Cantillon, François Quesnay, and Anne R. J. Turgot.

2. Mercantilism

Mercantilism refers to the economic thought and policies that were characteristic of the dominant western European trading nations during the transition from medieval feudalism to modern capitalism from the 16th to the late 18th century. Adam Smith coined the term mercantilism and was very negative towards it. Mercantilist policies included the granting of monopoly privileges, regulation of prices and business practices and especially prohibitions, tariffs, subsidies and other regulations regarding the conduct of international trade.

But import restraints and encouragement to exportation were mercantile policies that would enrich and empower the newly emerging nation-states. The mercantile era emerged after the discovery of the New World and the East Indies. Shipping and trading grew in importance during this period as did the frequency of military battles at sea and in the colonies. Anglo-French rivalry remained intense. Mercantile economic warfare complemented the military objectives of the antagonistic nations and served to unify each nation against an external threat.

The granting of monopoly privileges was a relatively more important form of state protection during the earlier part of the mercantile era, such as the British East India Company which was granted a monopoly charter in 1600. Such privileges were intended to benefit the developing shipping and long-distance trading industries themselves as well as to provide revenues to the state either directly, in the case of state monopolies, or indirectly through modest duties on imports of the private monopolies. Cromwell introduced the first Navigation Act of 1651, stipulating that all goods imported into England or her territories had to be carried in English ships, unless they were carried directly from a European country of origin on ships owned and crewed by citizens of that country of origin.

Mercantilism has often been depicted as the school of thought that confused money with wealth. There was a belief that inflow of precious metals would increase the wealth of the nation and that foreign but not domestic or internal trade was the only way to increase the wealth of a nation that did not possess gold or silver mines.

Mercantilism was the background for increasing discussion of economic issues in England. Economics was not a field yet and we are still a bit away from the Industrial Revolution. We shal look at the ideas of William Petty. 17C England is an interesting period with progress in many knowledge areas, not least science. England was on the rise economically towards the completely dominating period it would achieve. It had a more efficient agriculture and was a much more integrated economy than for instance France. Together with the Netherlands England ruled over the oceans. But it was also a turbulent period politically. Charles the First was executed, Cromwell usurped power. Different from France the parliament exerted power and prevented the absolutism of the monarchy. There ws censorship but also relativ efreedom of expression. Lots of pamphlets were printed.

3. William Petty 1623-87

William Petty studied medicine and became Professor of Anatomy in Oxford in 1650 and was also appointed to a Chair of Music in London. He then set out to apply the new scientific methodology of the 17C century to the practical economic problems of the modern nation state.

Petty contributions to the origin of classical political economy involved method, concepts, and analysis. His best known work and main contribution on methods was Political Arithmetick, written in the 1670s, published after his death; the method of political arithmetick he defined as follows:

To express myself in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes, as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites and Passions of particular Men, to the Consideration of others. (Petty, 1899, p. 244)

The empirical and inductive approach suggested here is clearly inspired by the scientific revolution which reached a climax in the second half of the 17th century.

[Petty was a contemporary with Robert Boyle and thus lived between Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton.) Francis Bacon was the philosopher representing this wave of science with conviction that the first step in the advancement of human understanding in any sphere of knowledge – whether in astronomy or in chemistry was to lay a foundation of direct, empirical observations.

To quote Bacon's Novum Organum:

The roads to human power and to human knowledge lie close together, and are nearly the same; nevertheless, on account of the pernicious and inveterate habit of dwelling on abstractions, it is safer to begin and raise the sciences from those foundations which have relation to practice and let the active part be as the seal which prints and determines the contemplative counterpart.]

Petty's political arithmetick implied that beyond recording and describing reality ‘in terms of number, weight or measure’ i.e. economic statistics, he aimed at expressing reality in such terms, identifying ‘such causes, as have visible foundations in nature’. The underlying view was that reality obeyed natural laws, the task of the scientist was to discover these natural laws beneath the surface of apparently erratic phenomena experienced by our senses. The aim was to locate reality's inner structure, not the descriptive details. Petty applies his political arithmetick to measure social phenomena in a search for the characteristics of human societies and for the nature and causes of social wealth. He attempted to calculate national income and also major components of the national income, although data sources were largely absent. The estimate of national income was partly based on an estimate the population which he also made. His methods in these and other estimates were very simple. Petty's only statistical technique was the use of simple averages.

Then to concepts, Petty's notion of money was specified through a human-body metaphor suggesting the three functions of money: unit of measure, means of exchange, and store of value.

Money is but the Fat of the Body-politick, whereof too much doth as often hinder its Agility, as too little makes it sick … As Fat lubricates the motion of the Muscles, feeds in want of Victuals, fills up uneven Cavities, and beautifies the Body, so doth Money in the State quicken its Action, feeds from abroad in the time of Dearth at Home; evens accounts by reason of its divisibility. (Petty, 1899, p. 112)

In relation to money, Petty clearly perceived the notion of the velocity of circulation further made the point that banks, in creating paper money, allow society to save on the cost of acquiring the precious metals necessary for ensuring the required monetary circulation. He launched ideas on the optimal taxation, with the chaotic situation then prevailing the prevailing, and spelled out preconditions for modern fiscal institutions, introducing the notion now known as fiscal pressure, i.e. the ratio between the amount of taxation and the level of national income.

Petty did not seem to perceive, however, the productive interrelationships connecting city and countryside, industry and agriculture, the productive interrelationships which Richard Cantillon drew attention to and which constituted the main analytical contribution of Quesnay's Tableau économique.

The notion of the surplus is one of Petty's fruitful contributions. He expressed the surplus in the economy in physical terms, as the amount of product (corn) exceeding the required means of production, and identified it with rent. In this way he avoided the problem of the determination of the profit rate, which in turn involves the problem of relative prices, since relative prices are required for evaluating both capital advances and the net product. Such problems became the concern of classical economists from Ricardo to Marx, more recently, by Piero Sraffa. Marx would later express his appreciation of these shades of Marxian surplus notion in labour terms, he called Petty the ‘founder of Classical political economy’].

Petty's strictly analytical contributions to the origins of classical political economy are more limited than his methods and conceps, but nonetheless relevant. In the theory of prices he attempted to find a way of expressing one of the two means of production, labour and land, in terms of other, in order to obtain a single magnitude expressing production cost. [It was a fairly primitive idea, but it served as a starting point for Richard Cantillon to take further and in turn influence Quesnay's economic thinking.]

Petty also made an important conceptual distinction between ‘actual’ and ‘natural’ prices or, that is exchanges actually taking place, and theoretical prices based on the factors influencing current prices. His concept of ‘natural price’ as an objective notion, was distinct from the notion of the ‘just price’, the moral rule of behaviour for sellers and buyers, as writers on economic issues had dealt with for centuries before Petty's time. [Both ‘surplus’ and ‘natural price’ were early contribution to classical value theory.]

Most of Petty's pamphlets on economic questions were circulated privately and published posthumously, for the second half of the 17th century was an age in which giving politico-economic advice to governments was a perilous occupation. The distinctive message running through these writings was the importance of basing public economic policies on systematically compiled empirical evidence and reasoned quantitative estimates of the nation's human and material resources. Petty is sometimes credited with having founded the first ‘school’ of economic thought, more to the point is perhaps that he had launched first scientific research programme in political economy.

Petty’s immediate followers (for example, Gregory King and Charles Davenant) definitively established the sciences of demography and economic statistics, while Petty's conceptual framework, adopted by Cantillon, exerted a decisive influence on the development of. In this way (as well as through other less direct channels) Petty influenced both Smith and Ricardo, even if they do not refer directly to his writings.

A further note on political arithmetic

Petty's importance for 17C culture is undeniable. His search for an ‘objective’ science contributes to the paradigm shift that was taking place at the time.

A friend of Petty’s, John Graunt, took in 1662 the first steps in the formulation of the modern science of demography by using the death returns and other data to make the first reasoned estimates of total population. Graunt was thus a more careful statistician than Petty but not an economist at all. Graunt and Petty were also influenced by philosopher John Locke (1632–1704), regarded as founder of the British empiricist tradition. Locke is credited with the first use of a most important analytical idea in economics, the demand-supply reasoning in determining price.

Another who practiced political arithmetic was Gregory King who produced demographic estimates and estimates of national income, more meticulously justified, more detailed, more internally consistent, and hence more credible in their delineation of the dimensions of the economy and in international or intertemporal comparisons than Petty’s own work. Another person who gave a famous contribution to political arithmetic was Halley, better known as astronomer (“Halley’s comet”) who made the first life insurance tables from a brilliant analysis of demographic data.

Political arithmetic continues into 18C but faded totally after that. Today we can lok a [The improved life tables, with proper probabilistic underpinnings, were to break away from the main political arithmetic and become part of a statistical/probabilistic tradition that would develop independently in Europe in the next two centuries.]

It was early econometrics, as Schumpeter indeed calls it. Petty's estimates of national income were often cited without any attempt at updating. The new discipline of political economy that took shape in the late 18th and early 19th centuries took off in more theoretical, less Baconian directions, political arithmetic lost its capacity to attract innovative exponents. Perhaps Adam Smith gave the coup de grâce to the whole approach when he announced in The Wealth of Nations that he had ‘no great faith in political arithmetick’ – though he was not above borrowing some of the political arithmeticians’ estimates when they served the purpose of his argument.

4. Economic thinking in 18C France

During 17C there was no French counterpart to the discussions of economic issues in England. It was the time of Louis IV whose Minaister of Finance Colbert attempted to promote the wealth and power of the monarchy through the regulation of commerce. By the end of the 17th century reflection on economic matters was just beginning, and the monarchy was increasingly conscious of the gravity of the problems that recurrent dearth and high levels of debt represented. This created the conditions for the questioning of economic policy with respect to both the provisioning of markets and taxation.

On contribution was Pierre de Boisguilbert writing in 1695 understood the close connection between income and consumption endorsing laissez-faire as the sole condition permitting the emergence of the ‘proportionate price’, a price at which each gained from participating in exchange and in which each party to the exchange adhered to his budget constraint. He argued that both good and bad harvests disrupted economic activity because they would bring about violent price changes if, as was the case in France, free competition was absent. The price of wheat was vital to the subsistence of populations. Since the wheat market determined the level of many agents’ income, variations in the price of wheat affected other markets. Expectations on the part of agents, whether justified or not, disturbed the economy, and government intervention was not capable of stabilizing the market since such intervention was in turn perceived to be the sign of an even more serious crisis.

After the death of Louis XIV in 1715, the Scotsman John Law turns up and convinces the regent that France's poor economic performance was due to an inadequate money supply. In 1716, he founded Banque Générale which later became Banque Royale, a bank which had the creation of paper money as its principal function; this paper money was supposed to substitute for coins and to permit a refinancing of government debt. A commercial company was granted an exclusive right to trade with Louisiana and the company's shares could be purchased only with billets d’Etat (government securities) at their face value instead of being discounted about 70 per cent, but the public could hope for capital gains if the company's trade was well managed. The company gained in this way an exclusive right to the exploitation of vast wealth, and the state transformed its floating debt into long-term debt with a lower interest rate.

The merging of the company and the bank permitted monetary expansion and at the same time boosted the value of the company's own shares. At the end of 1719 Law became Comptroller General of Finance – money issue was strong (around a million livres) and the rate of interest touched a low point of two per cent. The price of the company's own shares was stabilized by an office which intervened in the market. The system collapsed as soon as agents sought to exchange their shares and securities for cash. But Law's collapse had a lasting impact. The chance of modernizing the public finances had been missed, and for the entire 18th century the collapse weighed heavily on the capacity of the French monarchy to finance its military conflicts with Britain. In addition, a marked suspicion of fiduciary money and banking prevailed right up to the Revolution.

Discussion of monetary matters continued in the early part of the 18th century, but gave way to an interest in commerce from the perspective of the legislator, as in Richard Cantillon's Essai sur la nature du commerce en général (written around 1728–30 and published in 1755).

From 1750, economic publications multiplied and this growth accelerated in the years leading up to the Revolution. New contributors to the genre emerged with François Quesnay and the Physiocrats during a troubled political period including the Seven Years’ War (1756–63) and the Treaty of Paris, under which a large part of the French colonial empire was lost.

5. Richard Cantillon 1697-1734

Richard Cantillon is a somewhat mysterious figure. He was born in Ireland and active in banking in Paris between 1716 and 1720. Brilliantly anticipating the fate of John Law's scheme, he was also daring enough to profit immensely by it and is asserted to have ‘made a fortune of several millions in a few days’. Back in London in 1734, Cantillon's luck ran out, at the height of his success and his brilliance, he was robbed and murdered.

Only one work of Cantillon is known, the Essai sur la Nature du Commerce en Général (Essay on the Nature of Trade in General) published in 1755, no complete English translation until from 1931. Cantillon’ Essay became known to the English-speaking world by Jevons in 1881 who noted that Cantillon had presented a treatment of currency, foreign exchanges, banking and credit which, judged against the work of its period, he felt to be ‘almost beyond praise’.

It was recognized that Cantillon had set out the leading ideas of Adam Smith's doctrine concerning wages in different employments and that the Essay contained what Jevons (perhaps somewhat exaggeratedly) called ‘an almost complete anticipation of the Malthusian theory of population’. Jevons also praised Cantillon's treatment of ‘the whole doctrine of market value as contrasted to cost value’ (1881, p. 345). It was later also recognized that Cantillon made important contributions to the founding of allocation theory.

In the Essay while land is a given non-produced input, labour was a produced commodity available in return for subsistence. A reproduction structure thus exists, and surplus may be defined. Cantillon was he concerned with the allocation of surplus output, an idea taken over by François Quesnay, who embodied it in a formal model and passed it on to later classical economists.

Cantillon made several important contributions. He offered an early analysis of the respective roles of produced and non-produced inputs in a commodity reproduction structure. Developing Sir William Petty's concept of a ‘par’ between land and labour, Cantillon investigated the assumptions upon which a reduction of labour to land is legitimate, or more precisely reducing labour to the produce of land, that is, to corn. He noted that ‘as those who labour must subsist on the produce of the Land it seems that some relation might be found between the value of labour and that of the produce of the Land’ (Cantillon 1755). Cantillon had entered an area which even today is problematic concerning the aggregation of heterogeneous objects. Leaving aside the difficulties of heterogeneous labour and heterogeneous land with multiple uses, the par is the quantity of corn needed for the subsistence of a labourer and his family during a given period. To get a consistent model, corn must be treated as the only commodity strictly necessary to the reproduction system. Other outputs have to be treated as luxury goods (non-basics), so that one can accommodate the changing modes and fashions of Cantillon's prince and landowners.

Cantillon's treatment of surplus strongly suggest that it arises only in agriculture. All those in a state, we are told more than once, subsist at the expense of the proprietors of land, although there are passages where he seems to be recognizing that profits can arise in manufacturing.

Cantillon, however, did pioneering work in developing the theory of the allocation of surplus. His model is remarkably sophisticated. It is an isolated economy – one might think of it as an island – ruled by a prince or landowner. Cantillon considered the prince’s choice in using the surplus and how that would affect the prices. This lead him into reasoning about prices current prices deviating from natural prices, or intrinsic values. Cantillon, of course, was by no means the first to make some kind of distinction between market and natural prices, w ehave noted that petty made this distiction. But in Cantillon the distinction between market and natural price is an integral part of a whole economic model. The natural price, or intrinsic value of a commodity ‘is the measure of the quantity of Land and of Labour entering into its production’ (1755). Labour is then reduced, through the par, to subsistence units, which, as we have seen, can either be measured in corn or in quantities of a composite commodity. These intrinsic values are assumed to be invariant. Market prices may deviate from intrinsic values following a change in demand, as we have seen, but the actions of profit-maximizing capitalist farmers will then lead to supply changes, initiating the gravitation process.

Cantillon shows that he is quite aware that a planned economy directed by the prince, and a system of prices, can each achieve the identical allocation of surplus output – a result whose formal proof had to wait until the 20th century, and which lay fallow after Cantillon as classical political economy developed in other respects.

Cantillon was later embraced by the Austrian School economists in 20C who find rudiments of business cycle theory similar to their own. Joseph A. Schumpeter found Cantillon's treatment of the international specie flow mechanism a brilliant performance and insisted that ‘the automatic mechanism that distributes the monetary metals internationally is … almost faultlessly described’ (1954, p. 223).

6. François Quesnay 1694-1774

Quesnay studied medicine in Paris and became a surgeon. In the 1740s he became the private physician of Madame de Pompadour, Louis XV's mistress. For his medical services to the royal family he received a noble title. Around 1750 he became a member of the French Académie des Sciences, left the medical profession and took up an interest in economics, particularly agricultural matters.

He was in contact with many D'Alembert and Diderot, Buffon, Helvetius and Condillaca and others associated with the Encyclopédie, for which he wrote some articles. He also met Victor Riquetti, Marquis de Mirabeau from an old noble family. Mirabeau held the view that the main cause of national wealth was the number of people. Quesnay convinced him that agriculture was much more important than population, because it produced the commodities which were necessary for men's subsistence, Mirabeau became the most faithful propagator of Quesnay's ideas.

In 1758 Quesnay published the first edition of the Tableau économique. The year 1763 marked the beginning of a period of active intervention by the Physiocrats in economic debates. Quesnay contributed to the development of Physiocratic ideas with articles presenting further versions of the Tableau. This new Tableau was also used by Quesnay in the Premier problèmes économique, which appeared in the same periodical. Quesnay was the uncontested leader of the Physiocrats; new disciples joined the group and his ideas found some application in French economic policy. But by 1768 the cultural and political impact of Physiocracy began to decline and Quesnay's theory was bitterly criticized. He spent his last years studying geometry and died in December 1774, a few months after the death of Louis XV.

Although he wrote much the analysis of Quesnay's economic writings presents a problem; he did not write a single major text as a summary of his entire thought, but instead wrote small pieces, articles for the Encyclopédie and for the periodicals controlled by the Physiocrats, usually discussing only one economic issue at the time.

It is a very important feature of Quesnay's thought that he explained economic facts and individual actions on the basis of a view of society as a general interrelated system. Therefore, he believed that all aspects of social life were linked together and that it was possible to find the underlying causal relationships, which were nothing else than the outcome of natural laws.

The Tableau économique is one of those works in the history of economics which have often been regarded as an anticipation of modern theories. The Tableau has been considered a first rough presentation of Keynes's multiplier and by Schumpeter as a sort of general equilibrium system of a Walrasian type. For others, the Tableau is an input–output table. The Tableau has also been interpreted as the first classical system of price determination, anticipating Marx's reproduction schemes and Sraffa's price system. All editions of the Tableau have the three columns whose figures are related to each other by means of descending lines crossing the table, the so called zig-zag version of the Tableau.

The Tableau is a synthetic way of describing the circulation of money and commodities in relation to both the expenditure of revenue and the technical and social relationships between the two main sectors of the economy. The Tableau gives a concise description of the way in which the process of circulation of revenue reproduces the economy.

The main features of the economy described in the Tableau are as follows. First, in agriculture there are the best methods of cultivation, with large capital stock and high productivity, so that the annual advances can produce a surplus of the same size. A second assumption relates to the fiscal system; all duties and excises which exist in France ought to be substituted by a single tax on agricultural surplus. Third, free competition rules both in domestic and foreign trade in agricultural products, thus there is a bon prix for primary commodities and cultivation is a profitable activity. A fourth hypothesis relates to the landlords, who have made all the necessary ground advances, such as drainage, transport facilities etc. We could, of course, add other assumptions which clearly appear in the articles which precede the 1758 zig-zag. The State guarantees the ownership rights for all citizens and not only for landlords. In particular, the State protects the capital invested by cultivators as original advances.

It goes without saying that the society examined in the Tableau is not the actual French economy but an ideal country where all reforms and economic measures advocated by the Physiocrats have already been implemented. According to Quesnay, England is the country which most resembles this ideal society, and this explains why England is so prosperous and wealthy. The Tableau is a normative benchmark for the government; it describes the circulation and distribution of the social product and surplus, and it shows the final effects of these exchanges on future production.

In several of his writings Quesnay uses the Tableau to study what happens when government regulations or the behaviour of landlords does not conform to this natural order. For instance, he analyses the consequences of several forms of indirect taxation. The Tableau is also used to examine what happens when the landlords modify their pattern of consumption.

The Tableau économique is the most original aspect of Quesnay's economics, but it does not exhaust his economic theory. The Tableau immediately conveys the view of the economy as a single system which must reproduce itself. The analysis of the conditions which have to be satisfied to guarantee this reproducibility is the main object of economic science. This analysis indicates the factors which lead to an increase of national wealth.

For Quesnay, productivity increases are strictly dependent on the amount of means of production available and hence on the original advances of the cultivators. The main way of increasing national wealth was by securing the existence of a large agricultural sector with wealthy farmers.

While the notion of surplus can be detected in the economic analysis of some authors who preceded Physiocracy – for instance in Petty, it is only with Quesnay that net product is defined precisely as the difference between the social product and its means of production.

The main problem in Quesnay's analysis is the nature of wealth and the ways in which it can be created. From this point of view Quesnay clearly set out the main economic issues which were subsequently examined by Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations.

Agriculture is in Quesnay’s analysis the only productive sector, and taxation of surplus is the only way of avoiding damage to future production. The stock of productive capital must not be reduced by taxes, otherwise it would be impossible to maintain the same level of activity as the previous year. Hence rent is the only taxable magnitude.

Commentators have interpreted Quesnay's economics as a purely physical model: in agriculture the same goods are both the inputs and the outputs of the same process of production and the surplus can be measured simply as the difference between two physical quantities of agricultural product. The entire economic system can be described as a ‘corn model’ where the product and its means of production are homogeneous commodities; thus there is no need for a price theory. The manufactured products used in agriculture can simply be regarded as primary commodities which have changed shape thanks to the work of artisans. Other authors maintain that prices exist in Physiocratic economics and that the agricultural output and its means of production are heterogeneous goods. However, they believe that Quesnay took the exchange ratios between the products of industry and those of agriculture as given, and fixed.

Price theory is the final piece required to complete the picture of Quesnay's economic analysis of the ways of achieving growth and development. There are several steps to reach the well-ordered economy described in the Tableau. The implementation of free trade stimulates the effective demand for primary commodities and raises their current prices. This leads to higher profits for the farmers. If the fiscal system is based on the single tax on rent profits can be entirely reinvested in agriculture, thus raising the advances of cultivation. Capital accumulation in the productive sector of the economy leads to productivity increases. The surplus rises both in absolute terms and as a share of the social product; more and more resources can be reinvested in production, and national wealth grows. Quesnay develops a theory of growth which is based on the notion of surplus.

Quesnay's main contributions to economic science are certainly the concept of surplus and the Tableau économique. But one must also stress that for the first time there is a complete and relatively coherent theory designed to answer the most important problems of economic systems on the basis of a general analysis of all their main features. All economic issues are examined with the help of precise concepts and on the basis of a theoretical approach. Economic policy proposals derive from theoretical speculation, and are part of a single general model of the growth of national wealth. Finally all the aspects of Quesnay's economics are linked, in one way or the other, to his notion of surplus, which provides a sort of unifying thread to his thought. Quesnay can quite appropriately be regarded as the founder of that approach to the analysis of economic events which is called theory of surplus

7. Anne Robert Jacques Turgot 1727-81

Turgot was born in Paris, he studied first for a career in the Church, later he studied the philosophical systems of Newton and Locke. He is known as an economist, philosopher and administrator. After prominent positions as administrator he became the Minister of Finance under Louis XV but fell from grace in 1776 as his proposals were rejected.

Turgot's first meeting with Quesnay cannot be precisely dated. It may not have occurred till 1756 or 1757 when their mutual association with the Encyclopédie may have brought them together. Another enduring friendship was made with the philosopher and mathematician, Condorcet whose interest in public affairs during the Revolution gave rise to his essays on social mathematics applying calculus and the theory of probability in social science. (Remarkable is Condorcet’s voting paradox, which in a simpler fashion anticipates Kenneth Arrow’s ‘impossibility theorem’ in 1951, see Sandmo 2011.)

In 1761 Turgot was appointed Intendant of Limoges with responsibilities for collecting direct taxation, rectifying justice, promoting the arts of agriculture, encourage industry and commerce, etc. His administrative work permitted regular but infrequent visits to Paris where apart from the French intelligentsia, he also acquainted foreign notables like Hume, Adam Smith, Franklin and Gibbon.

Louis XVI's succession to the throne in 1774 marks the next stage in Turgot's career; his membership of the Royal Council as Minister of Finance (Comptroller General) 1774 to 1776. As minister he restored the domestic free trade in grain, abolished many small, local duties and other constraints on trade, and the January 1776 implemented measures, of which partial suppression of the guilds and replacing the corvée with a more general land tax were the more controversial measures. But then he fell from grace. The reforms Turgot had accomplished were reversed within six months from his downfall.

The Physiocratic School gained in importance during the 1760s and played a role in economic administration. In 1764–5 the Comptroller General, Bertin, liberalized trade in wheat and in flour; together with Turgot, Inspector in Limousin, and Pierre Paul Le Mercier de la Rivière, Inspector in the Antilles, the highest reaches of administration opened up to Physiocracy. The doctrine spread abroad: to Baden, Austria, Poland, Russia and Sweden. However, a succession of poor harvests in the later 1760s put an end to those tentative efforts at trade liberalization. Quesnay lost interest in political economy; the baton was taken up by a small number of writers, among whom Turgot was pre-eminent.

Turgot is close to Physiocracy, but he differs in theoretical points and practical matters. He was close in so far as he was a strong advocate of a complete freedom of trade, distancing himself from the slogan ‘liberty and protection’; and he adopted Quesnay's analysis of the price of wheat in respect of the theory of the net product and the single tax. But Turgot never made use of the Tableau Economique; he was, he said, happy to employ its metaphysics, meaning the competitive process upon which it was founded.

This led Turgot to a number of significant findings: the formation of markets upon the foundation of mutual interest between buyers and sellers constrained by transport costs; a theory of price (estimated value) proceeding from a discussion of the scarcity (quoted value) of a good for parties to an exchange – although Turgot stopped at two agents and two goods; the justification for interest upon loans and its determination according to market forces; a theory of the formation of a uniform rate of profit, or a stable hierarchy of such rates (Réflexions, 1766). If one adds to this list the discovery of the principle of decreasing returns to capital in agriculture it is clear that Turgot's theoretical contribution was a considerable one.

Turgot presents a fascinating analysis on both the uses of capital and its origins through accumulation and thrift. Turgot discusses accumulation and thrift both historically and analytically. Historically, accumulation is associated with slavery and surplus product from land: analytically, prudence and a desire for self-improvement are seen as major motives for thrift. Turgot argues that the savings process is greatly facilitated by the introduction of money but that this raises new complications such as a need to distinguish saving, hoarding and investment. Turgot's saving–investment analysis denied the possibility that money savings were able to induce substantial leakages from the circular flow because hoarding was seen as irrational and money had only a limited role as a store of value.

Turgot's analysis of the productive use of capital and its social implications is presented in the second and third parts of the Reflections. These reveal the degree to which his economics had departed from Physiocracy and anticipated views subsequently developed by Adam Smith. First of all, Turgot's exposition extends the use of capital to all sectors of industry thereby not confining it to agriculture as Quesnay had done. Secondly, Turgot, like Smith, links an increasing need for capital in production with extensions of the division of labour and a consequent lengthening of the time period of production. Thirdly, Turgot associates the provision of capital to industry with a new class of society, the capitalist/entrepreneur as owners of moveable wealth, who invest these resources to reap a return. Hence the working classes of agriculture, manufacturing and trade ‘may be divided into two orders of men, that of the Entrepreneurs of Capitalists, who make all the advances, and that of the mere wage earning workmen’ (Turgot, 1766). Of special significance for analysing distribution, this new class appropriates the resources by which it can live without labour through the creation of interest and profit as a new income type. Profit in this context, is clearly associated by Turgot with a return on productive investment, comprising an interest component, a premium for risk and remuneration for the time and trouble of the entrepreneur in supervising the investment.

Having shown that ‘capitals are the indispensable foundation of all lucrative enterprises’ and that the continual reproduction of these capitals ‘with a steady profit’ constitutes ‘the true idea of the circulation of money’ the disturbance of which may cause economic decline (1766a, pp. 75–6), Turgot analyses the mutual interrelationship of the returns on various types of investment and the rate of interest. Interest itself is shown by Turgot to be determined by the demand for and supply of loanable funds, the demand arising from both consumption and investment needs. These investment needs, or employments of capital as Turgot calls them, are described as: purchasing a landed estate, which yields least; lending a capital at interest the return of which is greater; and investing in agricultural, manufacturing or commercial enterprises, the return of which is greatest. Irrespective of these inequalities in yield to the various employments of capital, Turgot argues that competition combined with capital mobility causes a tendency to equilibrium between them.

As soon as the profits resulting from an employment of money, whatever it may be, increase or diminish, capitals turn in that direction or withdraw from other employments, or withdraw and turn towards other employments, and this necessarily alters in each of these employments, the relation between the capital and the annual product. This investment analysis must be seen as a substantial advance on the earlier literature, and hence as a major contribution to economics.

Turgot therefore developed the classical position which saw ‘natural prices’ as the centres of gravitation for market prices. Turgot's famous analysis of the ‘law of variable proportions’ (Schumpeter, 1954, pp. 260–1) may also be noted here. This arose in criticism of a common Physiocratic assumption that product was invariably proportional to advances. Turgot (1767b, pp. 111–12) argued instead that as ‘advances are gradually increased up to the point where they yield nothing, each increase would be less and less productive’, thereby clearly recognizing the possibility of diminishing returns. On the basis of these contributions, Schumpeter (1954) argued the Turgot was a writer in advance of his time by anticipating much of what became important after the ‘marginal revolution’. His development of the Physiocratic notion of reproduction (Turgot, 1763; 1766a, pp. 75–6) and his emphasis on the principle of competition as regulator of the rate of interest, wages and values in general, are firmly within that ‘classical tradition rehabilitated by Sraffa’.

Turgot's strong laissez-faire position turned him into the patron saint of the French liberal economics tradition of the middle of the 19th century. This rested on the principle that unrestrained self-interest yields the best results in economic activity, a principle he applied wherever he could during his administrative career. It justified his pleas (1770b) and subsequent imposition of domestic free trade in grain, his criticism of the prevalent regulation of lending at interest (1770a), and the suppression of the guilds in one of his famous 1776 Edicts. More important is his discussion of taxation principles. Turgot's major paper on the subject (Turgot, 1763), after setting out some general principles, defends the concept of the single tax on net product on the basis of Physiocratic theory. However, he identifies difficulties in its implementation. These need detailed examination if the benefits of the policy are to be achieved. More generally, it can be said of his policy implementation that though based on broad principles, these were in practice always modified to cater for actual circumstances.

Turgot's work and its importance in the history of economics have occasionally been vigorously debated, most notably in the controversies over the degree of influence he exerted on Adam Smith and Böhm-Bawerk's interpretation of his capital and interest theory. An assessment of the evidence suggests that Turgot influenced Smith on only a few fairly specific points and that the broad similarities (and differences) in their economic systems are largely explained by their common heritage of British and French predecessors.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download