Skip to main content

Full text of "The new tendencies of political economy"

See other formats


HB 
85 
L39 



m^ 



m^^ 



:-fm. 



: -^ 



**^ ^i: 



^>»^v- •' " "% --^ 



l^^a*s-.--v.4 






- - , . ^ ■■ ■■* 










it'" 


irj 








^ ^ *^ ••*-- 


, - "~ - •- 




''a 


^-■.. 






. X 






"%-M^/ 



■_*'"^Sr'-" ' .'■^v^ 



.^ 1^ 









^ 



>■ ^^- 



HB 
13^ 



^ 



r ,' 



^■/ir/U^/' 



^. 



^V^.^'r'^ (s'.4:/?,^t^-s-c^j^ia4^/..^£'^^.^'^-'^M^-^.^^' i^^^^fi^eii/ir'f^y^'''/^ 



'n</: 



"T 



u/ 



€:^ ..^Se-^ ^t>'^Z^if^€X^'JrS^.lV^^^'/ r.JYr.^z^U^'a: 



'^^'/- r.J^.^Z^d€^fa- 



^ 



ci^^^-'S^^y^^' 



Cornell University Library 
HB85 .L39 
The new tendenci.es,pj,.,poli|ical,,economy, 



olin 




3 1924 030 383 958 





DATE DUE 




^ 








(t>^li 


■'':^b2 h 1 


"S 




































































































































GAYLORD 






.«,.T„,..S,-> 




Cornell University 
Library 



The original of this book is in 
the Cornell University Library. 

There are no known copyright restrictions in 
the United States on the use of the text. 



http://www.archive.org/cletails/cu31924030383958 



THE 



IS^EW TENDENCIES 



Political Economy, 



EMILE DE LAVELEYE, 

Professor of Political Economy at the University of Lidge, Belgium. 



TRANSLATED FROM THE "REVUE DES DEUX MONDES " 
FOR THE "banker's MAGAZINE," 



BY 



GEORGE WALKER: 



APPENDIX CONTAINING THE REMARKS OF M. DE LAVELEYE AT 
THE ADAM SMITH CENTENARY IN LONDON. 



Published at the Office of 
The Banker's Magazine and Statistical Register, 

No. 251 Broadway, New York. 
1879. 



President White 
Library 



TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. 

The recent publication of an American translation of Roscher's Principles of 
Political Economy reminded me of Professor de Laveleye's very instructive article on 
the New Tendencies of Political Economy and of Socialism.^ which appeared in the 
Revue des Deux Mondes^ of July 15, 1876. I had often thought of publishing a 
translation of this article, but the time did not seem to me to have arrived for 
awakening a proper interest in the subject in this country. The course which public 
discussions have taken within the last year, however, and notably the resumption of 
specie payments, have brought financial and economical questions to the front, and 
give promise of a more intelligent consideration of them than at any recent period. 
Coincident with this is the revival of the protectionist and free-trade war in Europe, 
a war which has been actively begun in Germany, Austria, France and Italy, and 
the mutterings of which have not been unheard even in Great Britain. The dis- 
tressed condition of trade in all of these countries and the new political systems 
which are being consolidated in Germany, France, and Italy, have made the discus- 
sion of economic principles and of systems of fiscal administration more general and 
more vital than perhaps ever before. Indissolubly mixed up with them is the social 
question in its various aspects. As M. de Laveleye justly observes, in both of the 
papers now first offered to American readers, political economy seems to have passed 
through its first stage — that which gives instruction as to the accumulation of 
national wealth — and to have reached the far more important question of its distri- 
bution among the several classes which participate in creating it. The respective 
claims of capital and labor present to-day the most difficult and anxious social prob- 
lem. Political economy concerns itself with this problem, both because it calls in 
question the soundness of its past conclusions respecting the creation of wealth, and 
because it lies at the very bottom of its future conclusions as to an equitable distri- 
bution. 

The "orthodox" political economy, as it is styled by M. de Laveleye, means the 
doctrines of the Manchester school of free traders, as generally held in England for 
the last quarter of a century ; doctrines which are as firmly established at Oxford 
and Cambridge and in the House of Commons, as in Yorkshire or Lancashire. 
There have been some dissenters, however, like Cliffe Leslie and Thornton, who 
have called down the scoffings, if not the anathemas, of the orthodox camp. Thus, 
Professor Rogers says, in his article in the January Princeton^ "It is probable that 
there is no subject on which English people are practically more united than on 
this, for they do not trouble themselves to argue with a few people who are trying 
to raise an exploded practice under the new name of reciprocity. They are very 
tolerant of what they think is folly, but do not think it strong enough to be mis- 
chievous." This is very likely, but when we find such men as Leonard Courtney 
boldly advocating an export duty on coal, or the still more stringent measure of a 
duty at the pit's mouth, "the intention and justification" of which would be "to 
put all English industries under restraint," to put "a drag on industrial progress," 
because it would be a drag on the "multiplication of the population," and "that 
the dangerous expansion of national industry should be kept under," we begin to 
suspect that all is not harmony in the free-trade camp. 

The dogmatism of the Manchester school met, also, with a sharp rebuff in the 
address delivered by Professor Ingram, of Edinburgh, before the British Association 
at its last annual meeting. Professor -Bonamy Price, of Oxford, followed in the 
same vein in his paper read before the Social Science Association at a still later 



IV translator's preface. 

date. Both these economists are, we believe, free traders ; but they warn English 
men that the conclusions of econonnic science are always subject to be reconsidered, 
perhaps to be reversed. If this dangerous heresy should gain ground what becomes 
of the doctrine of " natural laws," to which man is supposed to be inexorably 
bound as the planets to the solar system ? 

The papers now translated do not present an issue against free trade. On the 
contrary. Professor de Lavel'eye is a free trader, and Belgium is the most advanced 
of all free-trade countries. But his economic and social philosophy is utterly at 
variance with those of the Manchester school. Nothing could be wider apart than 
Robert Lowe and M. de Laveleye.' One believes that man is an atom in the great 
family of mankind, too obscure and unimportant to be taken into the account in 
settling the question of the well-being of the race. The other holds that man is 
not a mere money-getting machine, nor is the selfish gratification of his appetites 
his moving impulse. That he is, on the contrary, "a moral being, who recognizes 
the obligations of duty, and under the teachings of religion or of philosophy, often 
sacrifices his enjoyments, his well-being, or his lifS even, to his country, to human- 
ity, to truth, to God. In different countries, at different epochs, men obey different 
motives, because they have formed peculiar conceptions of well-being, of law, of 
morality, and of justice." 

The doctrines of the historical school in political economy lead to no partisanship 
whatever. They are held equally by free traders and by protectionists in Europe. 
The underlying motive of their system is the right of individual and of national judg- 
ment to determine upon a given state of facts, what policy, in respect of production 
and exchange, it is wise to pursue here and now. It treats political economy as a 
science, not of pure, principles, but of applied principles, and this alone makes pos- 
sible a progressive fiscal policy, moulding itself according to the traditions, the 
usages, the aspirations, and the actual condition of a free people. This is eminently 
the economic system suited to the wants of the American people* It deals with the 
past without contumely, and it welcomes the future without prejudice. 

No man who looks at the history of past American legislation on the subject of 
the tariff, in a calm and philosophic spirit, can fail to admit that it is full of 
ignorance, of vacillation and of mistakes. We might have been abreast of England 
in opening our markets freely to the world, if our tariff policy had been consistent 
and progressive. If the English House of Commons has legislated for mankind 
rather than for man., the American Congress has legislated for vutn rather than for 
mankind. In other words, the Committee of Ways and Means has always been the 
center of personal and individual and local interests, instead of consulting and rep- 
resenting the average interests of American citizens — occupying a great continent 
with different productions and different wants. I do not say that the harmonizing 
of those interests is not at all times difficult, but it does seem to me that if the 
fiscal policy of the country were put beyond the pale of party, as completely as has 
been done in Great Britain since the repeal of the Corn Laws, a system might be 
eliminated which should respect traditions, conciliate labor and make rapid strides 
in the direction of commercial freedom. In this as in most pubHc questions the 
truth lies between the extremes — "Medio tutissimus ibis." 

George Walker. 



THE NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY * 

[ TRANSLATED FROM THE REVUE DES DEUX MONDES BY GEORGE WALKER.] 

The Political Economy which I should describe as ortho- 
dox, that is to say, the science as it had been understood 
and expounded by its fathers, Adam Smith and J. B. Say, 
and by their disciples, has seemed to be definitively settled. 
Like the Church of Rome, it had its credo. Certain 
truths appeared to be so firmly established, so irrefragably 
demonstrated, that they were accepted as dogmas. Those 
who doubted them were regarded as heretics, whose igno- 
rance alone explained their vagaries. No doubt these truths 
had not -been formulated without meeting with vigorous 
opposition. From the beginning, and down to our own time, 
they have been attacked by certain religious writers, who have 
charged them with materialism and immorality, and by dif- 
ferent socialistic sects, who have reproached them with sacrific- 
ing relentlessly the rights of the disinherited classes to the 
privileges of the rich ; but the economists have had little diffi- 
culty in defending themselves against these classes of adver- 
saries, who have been governed chiefly by sentiment, and 
have had no just apprehension of the questions which they 
ventured to discuss. 

At the present day, however, the dogmas of political econ- 
omy are meeting with far more formidable antagonists. In 
Germany they are found among the professors of political 
economy themselves, who, for this reason, have been denomi- 
nated Katheder Socialisten, or, " Socialists of the chair." In 
England they are those economists who have given the most 
attention to the study of history and of law, and who best 
understand the facts established by observation and by statis- 
tics ; such as Mr. Cliffe Leslie, and Mr. Thornton ; in Italy 
they constitute a whole group of distinguished writers, 
Luzzati, Forti, Lampertico, Cusmano, A. Morelli, who have 
given expression to their ideas in a Congress assembled 
last year at Milan, -and who have for their organ the 
" Giortiale degli Economisti." In Denmark there is the 
excellent economical repertory published by Messrs. Fred- 
ericksen, V. Falbe, Hansen, and Wil. Scharling. It can- 
not be doubted, therefore, that there is, in the present 
instance, a scientific revolution going on of a very serious 
character, which calls for an attentive examination. We shall 
endeavor first, to point out the origin and character of these 
new tendencies of political economy ; and afterwards, to con- 

^ Les Tendences nouvelles de L' Econotnie Politique ei du Socialistne, Revue des Deux 
Mondes. July, 187S. By Emile de Laveleye. 



2 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

sider carefully the writings of some of the authors who 
best represent the different shades of the movement, as well 
as those of the Socialists whom it is their mission to combat. 

I. 

The new political economy takes a different view from the 
old, of the fundamental principles, the methods, the mission, 
and the conclusions of the science. The starting point of the 
Socialists of the chair, is entirely different from that of the 
orthodox economists, whom they designate under the name of 
Manchester-thum, or sect of Manchester ; because it is, in 
fact, ,the school of the free traders, which has expounded 
most logically, the dogmas of the ancient credo. Let us see 
how the new economists themselves indicate the poi^nts which 
separate them from the generally received doctrines.* 

Adam Smith, and more especially, his successors, such as 
Ricardo, McCulloch, J. B. Say, and all the so-called English 
school, followed the deductive method. They started out with 
certain ideas respecting man and nature, and thence deduced 
certain consequences. Rossi characterizes this method clearly 
when he says that " political economy, regarded from a general 
stand-point, is rather a science of reason than of observation. 
It has for its object a thorough knowledge of the relations 
which proceed from the nature of things. ... It seeks 
for laws, by taking' its stand on the general and constant 
facts of human nature." In this system, man is considered 
as a being who everywhere and always pursues his private 
interest ; under the impulse of this motive, good in itself 
( since it is the principle of his preservation ), he searches 
after that which is useful to him, and no one is able to dis- 
cover it better than himself. If, therefore, he is free to act 
as he pleases, he will, in the end, procure for himself all the 
satisfactions which it is given to. him to attain. Down to the 
present time, the State has always put restraints upon the full 
expansion of economic forces ; do away with these restraints 
and as all men will apply themselves freely to the 
pursuit of their well-being, the true order will establish itself 
in the universe. Competition, general and unrestricted 
enables every individual to reach the place which is best 
suited to him, and to reap the just reward of his labors. As 
Montesquieu has observed, " it is competition which puts a 
just price on, merchandise." It is the infallible regulator of 
the industrial world. It is like a providential law, which, in 
the highly complicated relations of mankind united by the 
bonds of society, causes order and justice to be enthroned. If 
the State will only abstain from all interference with human 
transactions, and accord entire freedom to property, to capi- 
tal, to labor, to exchanges, to vocations, the production of 

*We shall follow in this connection principally the writings of Adolph Held, Gustav Schon- 
berg, Gustav Schmoller, Contzen, Wagner, and L. Luzzati. 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 3 

wealth will be carried to its highest point, and the general 
well-being will thus beconie as great as possible. The legis- 
lator has no occasion to occupy himself with tne. distribution 
of wealth ; it will be made conformably to natural laws and to 
contracts freely entered into. 

A phrase of Gournay, enunciated in the last century, 
embodies the whole doctrine : laissez faire, laissez passer. 
Under this theor}-, the problems which have relation to the 
government of societies, were found to be greatly simplified. 
The statesman has only to fold his arms. The world goes 
on of itself towards its end. It is the optimism of Leibniz, 
and of Hegel, transferred to the domain of politics. 

Resting on ' these philosophic doctrines, the economists 
enunciated certain general principles applicable in all times, 
and to all peoples, because of their absolute verity. The 
orthodox political economy was essentially cosmopolitan. It 
took no account of the division of mankind into separate 
nations ; nor of the different interests which might result there- 
from any more than it concerned itself with the necessities, or 
the particular conditions resulting from the history of differ- 
ent States. It regarded only the good of mankind considered 
as a single great family, precisely qs does every abstract 
science, and every universal religion, Christianity most of all. 

Having thus set forth the old doctrine, the new economists 
proceed to criticise it as follows : They accuse it of seeing 
things from only one side. They admit that man pursues his 
own interest, but they assert that more than one motive acts 
upon his moral nature, and regulates his conduct. Apart from 
self-interest, there is the sentiment of collectivity, the gemein 
Sinn, the social instinct, which manifests itself in the forma- 
tion of the family, of the community, and of the State. Man 
is not like the lower animals, which know nothing beyond 
the satisfaction of their appetites ; he is a moral being, who 
recognizes the obligations of duty, and under the teachings 
of religion or of philosophy, often sacrifices his enjoyments, 
his well-being, and his life even, to his country, to humanity, 
to truth, to God. It is a mistake, therefore, to predicate a 
series of deductions upon the aphorism that man acts only 
under the control of a single motive — individual interest. 
Those "general and constant facts of human nature," from 
which Rossi would have us deduce economic laws, are only 
a conception of the imagination. In different countries, at 
different epochs, men obey different motives, because they 
have formed peculiar conceptions of well-being, of law, of 
morality, and of justice. The savage procures his subsistence 
by chasing and if need be, devouring, those of his own kind : 
the citizen of antiquity by reducing them to slavery, in order 
to live on the fruits of their labor ; the man of modern times 
by paying them wages. 

Mankind having, according to their several conditions of 



4 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

civilization, different wants, different motives, different methods 
of producing, of distributing, and of consuming wealth, it 
follows thence that economic problems do not admit of those 
general and a priori solutions, which are usually demanded of 
the science, and which it has too often ventured to supply. We 
ought always to examine the question relatively to a given 
country, and in so doing to seek the aid of statistics 
and of history. Hence arises the historical or Realistic method, 
as it is denominated by the Socialists of the chair, that is 
to say, the method founded on facts.* 

According to the Socialists of the chair, it is also a mis- 
take to maintain, as Bastiat has done in his Harmonies Eco?io- 
miques, that general order results from the free play of indi- 
vidual selfishness, and that consequently it is only necessary 
to remove all hindrances in order that each person shall 
attain to the well-being to which his efforts entitle him. 
But selfishness leads men to wickedness and to spoliation ; it 
is necessary, therefore, to restrain it and not to give it free 
play; this is, in the first place, the proper mission of moral- 
ity, and afterwards, the mission of the State, as the organ 
of justice. Without doubt, if men were perfect and desired 
only good, liberty would suffice to insure the reign of order; 
but constituted as they are, unrestrained interests result in 
antagonism, and not in harmony. The employer desires to 
reduce wages, the workman to raise them. The landowner 
is constantly endeavoring to advance rent, the farmer to 
reduce it. Everywhere the strongest and the most capable 
triumphs, and in the conflict , of opposing interests, no one 
troubles himself about the teachings of morality or of justice. 

It is in England, especially, where all restraints have been 
abolished, and where the most perfect freedom of industry 
prevails, that the war of classes, the antagonism of masters 
and workmen presents itself in the most determined way, and 
under aspects the most alarming. It is in that country, also, 
— the country, par excellence, of laissez /aire — that, for a con- 
siderable time past, the interference of Government has been 
most frequently invoked, to repress the abuses of the strong 
and to protect the weak. After having disarmed power, 
they are daily conferring upon it new privileges. Is not this 
a proof that the economic doctrine of absolute freedom 
does not afford a complete solution of the questions at 
issue? 

The new economists do not profess that horror of the 
State which led their predecessors to declare sometimes 
that, the State was a canker and sometimes that it was a 
necessary evil. To them, on the contrary, the State, which 

* Although in France no new economic school has been established, as in Germany, in Eng- 
land and in Italy, many writers are pursuing the historical or realistic method with a confi- 
dence of learning and a richness of information which are nowhere else surpassed. It will 
suffice us to mention MIVI. L6once de Lavergne, L. Reybaud, Wolowski, Victor Bonnet, and 
Paul Leroy-Beaulieu, 



NEW, TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 5 

represents the unity of the nation, is the supreme organ of 
law and the instrument of justice. Being itself the emana- 
tion of the vital forces and of the intellectual aspirations of 
a country, it is charged with the duty of fostering the devel- 
opment of these in all directions. As history proves, it is 
the most powerful agent of civilization and of progress. 
The liberty of the individual ought to be respected and 
even stimulated, but it should remain in subjection to the 
rules of morality and of justice, and those rules, which 
become more and more strict in proportion as the ideas of 
goodness and justice become more pure, should be made 
obligatory by the State. 

Freedom of industry is, doubtless, an excellent thing. Free 
exchange, freedom of labor and of contracts have contrib- 
uted very greatly to increase the production of wealth. It 
is necessary, therefore, to strike off from liberty all fetters, 
if any still exist ; but it is the duty of the State to inter- 
pose whenever the evidences of individual interest appear 
to conflict with the humane mission of political economy, 
by the oppression and degradation of the lower classes. 
Thus it is, that the State has a double duty to perform : 
first, to maintain liberty in the limits marked out, for it by 
morality and law ; next, to lend its support in every case 
where the object in view ( which is social progress ) can be 
better attained in this way than by individual effort. Cases 
in point are the improvement of harbors, the opening of 
ways of communication, the fostering of education, of the 
sciences, of the arts, or of any other object of general utility. 
The interference of the State ought not always to be withheld, 
as the economists a outrance desire, nor always invoked, as 
the Socialists, on the other hand, demand ; each case should 
be examined by itself, taking into account the wants to be 
satisfied and the ability of private enterprise to meet them. 
But it is a mistake to suppose that the duty of the 
State grows less important as civilization advances; that duty 
is by no means the same at the present day as under the 
patriarchal or despotic systems of government. The functions 
of the State are constantly growing larger wherever new 
paths are opened to human activity and in proportion as the 
appreciation of what is lawful and of what is unlawful 
grows purer. The same doctrine has been also propounded 
in France, with much force, by M. Dupont-White in his book 
on the Individual and the State. 

The Socialists of the chair also accuse the orthodox econ- 
omists of being too exclusively occupied with questions relat- 
ing to the production of wealth, and with neglecting those 
which concern its distribution and consumption. They allege 
that the economists have treated man merely as a producing 
agent, without giving due consideration to his destiny and 
his obligations as a moral and intelligent being. In their 



6 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

view, owing to the marvelous results of science applied , to 
industry, the latter might even now furnish a sufficiency of 
products, if all the labor were usefully employed and if so 
many human efforts -were not frittered away in the procur- 
ing of false, if not vicious, indulgences. 

The great problem of our times is what is called the social 
question ; that is to say, the question of distribution. The 
working classes seek to better their condition and to obtain 
a larger share of the goods which are produced by the joint 
action of capital and labor. Within what limits and under 
what conditions is this possible ? This is the question. In 
presence of the dangers which disturb and threaten the 
social body, three systems present themselves : that which 
advocates a return to the past, and the reestablishment of 
the old order of things — socialism, which looks to a radical 
change in the social order — and finally, the orthodox politi- 
cal economy, which holds that everything will find its solu- 
tion in liberty and in the action of natural laws. According 
to the Socialists of the chair, no one of these three systems 
is capable of solving all the difficulties which agitate our 
times. A return to the past is impossible ; a general and 
hasty remodeling of society is no less so ; and to invoke the 
action of liberty is only a mockery of words, since the ques- 
tion at issue is one of law, of the civil code, and of social 
organization. The distribution of products is made not only 
in virtue of contracts, which ought evidently to be free, but 
still more in accordance with civil laws and with moral senti- 
ments, the influence of which must be understood and the 
justice of which must be determined. Economic problems 
cannot be justly considered apart from other things ; they are 
allied intimately with psychology, with religion, with morality, 
with, law, with customs, with history. Account should, there- 
fore, be taken of all these elements, and we should not rest 
contented with the uniform and superficial formula of laissez 
/aire. The antagonism of classes, which has always been at 
the bottom of political revolutions, is reappearing at the 
present day with aspects more formidable than ever before. 
It seems to put in peril the future of civilization. We can- 
not deny the evil ; but it becomes us, rather, to study it in 
all its phases, and to endeavor to find a remedy for it in 
progressive and rational reforms. The sources of inspiration 
must be sought in morality, in the sentiment of justice, and 
in Christian charity. 

In short, the elder economists, starting from certain abstract 
principles, endeavored, by the deductive method, to arrive at 
conclusions well settled and universally applicable. The 
Socialists of the chair, on the other hand, taking as their 
basis a knowledge of past and present facts, draw from them, 
by the inductive and historical method, certain conclusions 
which are only relatively true and are modified by the state 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 7 

of society to which they are applied. The one party con- 
siders that the natural order, which presides over physical 
phenomena, ought also to govern, human societies, and main- 
tain that, if all artificial fetters were removed, there would 
result from the free play of inclinations a harmony of inter- 
ests, and from the complete enfranchisement of individuals 
a better social organization and a greater measure of gen- 
eral well-being. The other party, on the contrary, maintains 
that the same law holds good in the domain of human 
economy which prevails among animals, namely, that in the 
struggle for existence and the conflict of selfishness, the 
strong are certain to crush out, or at least to take advantage 
of, the weak, unless the State, which is the organ of justice, 
comes in to award to each one the return to which he is. 
legitimately entitled. They also hold that the State ought 
to contribute directly to the progress of civilization. So far, 
in short, from admitting, with the orthodox economists, that 
uncontrolled liberty is sufBcient to put an end to social con- 
flicts, they maintain that progressive reforms and ameliora- 
tions, inspired by sentiments of justice, are indispensable to 
society, if it hopes to escape civil discord and the despotism 
which is certain to follow in its train. 

The new school of economists has made the greatest 
progress in Germany, the reason being that political econoiny 
is there ranked among the departmental sciences, {sciences 
camei-ales) that is to say, sciences which pertain to Govern- 
ment. They have never, therefore, treated it as an independ- 
ent subject governed by special laws. Even the orthodox 
disciples of ithe English school, like Rau, have never failed to 
recognize the close bonds which unite it with other social 
sciences, notably with politics ; and they have habitually 
resorted to facts in support of their positions. Ever since 
the principles of Adam Smith and his followers began to 
take root in Germany, they have met with objectors like 
Professor Lueder and Count von Soden, who maintained that 
the increase of wealth was not the only thing to be consid- 
ered, but the general progress of civilization. Subsequently 
to these authors have arisen List, Stein, Roscher, Knies,- Hil- 
ebrand, and at the present day their name is legion : Nasse, 
Schmoller, Held, Contzen, Schaffie, Wagner, Schonberg, G. 
Hirth, V. Bohmert, Brentano, Cohn, Von Scheel, Samter. 

II. 

Let us now endeavor to sift out what there is of good in 
the views of the new school. In the first place, it is clear 
that we have not yet arrived at the point of determining 
accurately the fundamental principle, the characteristics and 
the limitations of political economy, nor its relations to other 
sciences of the same order. " Though we may blush for the 
science," said M. Rossi, "the economist must, nevertheless. 



8 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

avow, that the first question to be examined is still this : 
What is political economy, what are its objects, its extent, 
its limitations ? " This observation is well founded ; even in 
the Dictionaire d'' Economic Politique, the writer on whom 
devolved the duty of exactly defining it, M. C. Coquelin, is 
unable to decide whether it is an art or a science. He desires 
to establish it as a science, defining it with Destutt de 
Tracy, as the resultant of truths which come from the exam- 
ination of a given subject. He adopts the language of 
Rossi, that "science has no object: the moment we begin 
to consider the uses which can be made of it, we fall from 
science into art. Science is in all things only the possession 
of truth." And M. Coquelin adds, "To observe and describe 
actual phenomena, that is science ; it neither counsels, nor 
prescribes, nor directs." Nevertheless, after having settled 
upon this definition, the embarrassment of M. Coquelin is 
great, and he avows it frankly. The very dictionary in which 
he wrote contains a variety of articles, and those among the 
most important, which do not content themselves with 
observing and describing, but on the contrary, counsel and 
prescribe ; which condemn this institution or that law, and 
demand its repeal. 

According to these articles, political economy would seem 
to be only an art, and not a science. M. Coquelin admits 
that it is, at the same time, both the one or the other ; but 
when he tries to draw the line of demarcation, he is forced 
to make this singular confession of impotence : " Shall we 
endeavor, at present, to make a clear separation between the 
science and the art by bestowing on them different names ? 
No, it is enough for us to note the distinction ; time and a 
better understanding of the subject will do the rest." 

The uncertainty and the obscurity which we find in most 
authors when they endeavor to define the objects of political 
economy, may perhaps arise from their endeavor to make it 
either a science of observation, like natural history, or an 
exact science, like mathematics, and because they have 
assumed to find in it fixed and immutable laws, like those 
which govern the physical universe. Let us endeavor to clear 
up these two points, inasmuch as they are fundamental ; the 
true character of political economy will be made plainer by 
the discussion. 

Three classes of sciences are generally recognized to exist, 
the exact sciences, the natural sciences, and the moral and 
political sciences. The exact sciences are so termed because 
they have to do with clearly defined abstract data, such as 
numbers, lines, points and geometrical figures, and by a process 
of reasoning arrive at conclusions which are rigorously exact 
and unassailable ; such are the sciences of arithmetic, algebra, 
and geometry. The natural sciences observe and describe the 
phenomena of nature, and seek to discover the laws which 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 9 

govern them ; such are the sciences of astronomy, 
physics, botany, and physiology. The moral and political 
sciences deal with ideas, with the actions of man and the 
creations of his will — with .institutions,^ laws, and religion; 
such are the sciences of philosophy, morality, law, and 
politics. In which of these categories shall we rank political 
economy ? 

Certain writers, among whom are M. Du Mesail-Marigny, 
in France, M. Walras, in Switzerland, and Mr. Jevons, in 
England, have endeavored to resolve some of the problems 
of political economy by putting them into algebraic formu- 
las.* It does not seem to me that they have, in this way, 
thrown much light on the difficult points to which they have 
applied this method of demonstration. Economic phenomena 
are subject to a great variety of diverse and variable influ- 
ences which are not capable of being represented by figures ; 
they do not admit, therefore, of those rigorous deductions 
which belong to mathematics. The facts which have to be 
considered, the wants of mankind, the value of commodities, 
wealth, have in them nothing absolutely fixed, and the diver- 
sities in them depend on opinion, fashion, custom, climate, 
and an infinity of circumstances which it is impossible to 
embrace in an algebraic equation. 

Political economy cannot, therefore, be ranked among the 
exact sciences. This has been one of the grounds of com- 
plaint against it, and it has even been denied the name of 
science altogether, because it is not capable of arriving at 
results which are mathematically exact. But it is to this, on 
the contrary, that it owes, in certain aspects, its superiority 
and its greatness. It cannot pretend to arrive at conclusions 
which are absolutely exact, because its speculations have to 
do, not with abstract and perfectly defined elements, but 
with the wants and with the actions of man, a free and 
moral being, " ondoyant et divers, who is obedient to motives 
which are alike incapable of being precisely determined, or 
especially of being measured by figures. 

The generalty of economists, either by the definition which 
they give to the object of their studies, or. by the conception 
which they have of their mission, make it a science of observ- 
ation and of description, or, as M. Coquelin says, " a branch 
of the natural history of man." This writer gives the follow- 
ing clearer expression of his idea : "Anatomy studies man in 
the physical constitution of his being ; physiology, in the play 
of his organs ; natural history ( according to the practice of 
Buffon and his successors ), in his habits, his instincts, his wants, 
and in reference to the place which he occupies in the scale of 

*M. A. Walras published in 1831 a work entitled The Nature of WeaWi and the Origin of 
Value, in the eighteenth chapter of which he endeavors to demonstrate "that political economy 
is a mathematical science." See also Stanley Jevons' Theory 0/ Political Economy, 1871. 
L6on Walras, Elements of Pure Political Economy, 1874. Cournot published in 1830 his 
Researches into the Mathematical Principles of the Iheory of Wealth, 



lO NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

being ; political economy considers him in the combination 
of his works. One of the most interesting studies of the 
naturalist is to watch the labors of the bee in its hive, to 
study its order, its- combinations, and its progress. The 
economist, in so far as he cultivates the science only, does 
exactly the same in respect to that intelligent bee called 
man; he observes the order, the progress, and the combina- 
tion of his labors. The two studies are of precisely the same 
nature." 

According to this, it is obvious that political economy is ' 
not a moral science. It does not deal with a good to be 
realized, nor with an ideal to be attained, nor with duties to 
be fulfilled ; it suffices for it to observe and to describe the 
methods by which the human animal labors for the satisfac- 
tion of his wants. Such was the impression of J. B. Say, 
when he placed at the beginning of his famous treatise, and 
as a title to that renowned work, this definition which has 
been ever since repeated. Treatise on Political Economy, or a 
simple Explanation of the mamier in which wealth is created, dis- 
tributed, and consumed. Bastiat, with that precision of language, 
that vivacity and brilliancy of style which often conceal the 
want of profundity of his ideas, insists strongly on making 
political economy a purely descriptive science. " Political 
economy," he says, " exacts nothing, and indeed counsels 
nothing, it describes how wealth is created and distributed, in 
the same way that physiology describes the action of our 
organs." Bastiat endeavored to increase the authority of 
economical principles by attributing to them the objective, 
disinterested, impersonal character of the natural sciences. He 
forgot that /of free trad^all his writings and his active pro- 
pagandism^ontradicted his definition. 

In a very well written book, but one in which the exact- 
ness of the reasoning makes only the more apparent the 
error of the premises when they are false, Antoine-Elis6e 
Cherbuliez expresses the idea of J. B. Say, of Bastiat, and of 
Coquelin, with still greater clearness. " Political economy," 
he says, " is not the science of human life, nor of social life, 
nor even that of the well-being of mankind. It would still 
exist, and would change neither its object nor its end, if 
riches, instead of contributing to our well-being, did not 
enter into it at all, provided that they continued to be pro- 
duced, to circulate, and to be distributed."* 

This author, in order to give to the science an absolute 
character, which it cannot have, enunciates an hypothesis 
which is clearly contradictory. He forgets that a given 
object is definable as wealth only because it answers to some 

*See Cherbuliez, Precis de la Science Economigue, vol. i. M. Cherbuliez held strongly to 
the idea of constituting a pure political economy similar to pure mathematics. " Economical 
science," said he, " has for its object the discovery of truth, not the production of a practical 
result; of enlightening men, not of rendering them better or happier; and the truths which it 
discovers can only be theories, or conclusions based on those theories, not imperative rules, nor 
precepts of individual conduct, nor of administration." 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. II 

one of our wants, and contributes to our well-being. To con- 
ceive of wealth which dqes not enter into our well-being is to 
, admit that there is wealth which is not wealth. 

The economists who ascribe to political economy the rigor 
of the exact sciences, or the objective character of the natural 
sciences, forget that it is a moral science. Now, the moral 
sciences do not confine themselves to discussing what is,' but 
declare also what ought to be. A strange moralist would he 
be who should content himself with analyzing the passions 
of man, and who should neglect also to speak to him of his 
duties ! The object of morality is precisely this, to deter- 
mine what we owe to God, to our fellows, and to ourselves ; 
what things we ought to do or to avoid doing, in order to 
arrive at the degree of perfection which it is given us to 
attain. So of political science, it is not enough to enumerate 
the different forms of government which exist, nor even to 
trace an ideal constitution for perfect men ; it must also 
teach us what are the institutions fitted to a given people, or 
a given situation, and what are those most favorable to the 
progress of the human race. Thus, it will not only place 
despotism, which stifles human spontaneity, on a different 
footing from liberty, which develops our most noble qualities, 
but it ought also to declare the conditions on which free 
institutions can endure, and what errors and what weak- 
nesses render a despotic government inevitable. 

In like manner, the economist cannot stop with describing 
how riches are produced and distributed. That of itself 
would be a long study, and a much more difficult one than 
Say and his disciples seem to suspect ; for it is not enough 
to learn what is going on in a single country, since the 
modes of production and distribution vary in different 
nations. But that is only the smallest part of the task of 
the true economist ; he must also show how men ought to 
organize themselves, how they ought to produce and dis- 
tribute wealth, to the end that they may be as well provided 
as possible with the things which constitute their well-being. 
Nor is this all ; he must also search out the practical methods 
of attaining the object which he indicates. Thus he finds in 
a certain country inland customs duties between province and 
province, or octrois which arrest exchanges at the entrance at 
all cities ; shall he confine himself to a mere stategient of 
these facts, as a naturalist would do, or as Bastiat and Cher- 
buliez advise ? Evidently not ; he must point out the per- 
nicious consequences of these institutions ; he must counsel 
the abolition of them, and endeavor to show how it can be 
done. If he lives in a country which endeavors to increase 
its power and happiness by making itself distrusted by its 
neighbors, through the extent of its military armaments, he 
will not hesitate to point out that a people can have no 
interest in rendering others subservient to it, or in weakening 



12 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

them ; and that a nation cannot sell its costly products to- 
advantage, unless it has rich neighbors who are in a condi- 
tion to pay for them. Have not economists themselves, M. 
Bastiat at their head — forgetting their definitions, devoted 
their whole energy to recommending, and to demanding the 
abolition of protective tariffs ? Were they content to observe 
and to describe only, when they founded their system of Free 
Trade, and were running from meeting to meeting to secure 
demonstrations in its favor ? 

There is a fundamental difference between the natural 
sciences and political economy, which has not been suflfi- 
cieiitly emphasized. The former are occupied with the 
phenomena of nature, irresistible forces which we can only 
indicate but cannot modify. The moral sciences, and politi- 
cal economy among them, are occupied with human facts, 
emanations of our free will, which we have power to modify 
in such a manner as to render them more conformable to 
the requirements of justice, of duty, and of our well-being. 
Observe also that the economists and the naturalists proceed 
by a different method. The latter observe the overthrow of 
cities by earthquakes, the increasing rigor of the climate of 
planets, and the disappearance in them of every trace of 
animal or vegetable life. They seek to discover the causes 
of these phenomena, but they make no pretense of modifying 
them. Economists, on the contrary, when they encounter 
laws, ordinances, or customs, prejudicial to the growth of 
human welfare, contend with them and try to accomplish their 
overthrow. Like the physician, who, after having made a 
diagnosis of the disease, points out the remedy, so the econo- 
mist should first, satisfy himself of the nature of the evils 
from which society suffers, and afterwards point out the 
methods by which those evils may be cured. Roscher 
declared that political economy was the physiology of the 
social body. It is indeed that, but it is something more, it 
is also its therapeutics. 

What has entailed grave errors and essentially narrowed the 
range of economic studies, is the fundamental idea, common 
to Adam Smith, and to most of the philosophers of his time, 
that social phenomena are regulated by natural laws, which, 
but for the vices of institutions, would lead men to happi- 
ness. The philosophers of the eighteenth century believed in 
the innate goodness of man, and in a natural order. It was 
the fundamental dogma of their philosophy and of their pol- 
itics. Sir Henry Maine has shown that this theory sprang- 
from the Greek philosophy passing under the influence of the 
Roman jurists, and of the Renaissance. Rousseau is continu- 
ally repeating that " everything is good which comes from the 
hands of nature." "Man is naturally good," says Turgot. It 
was upon this idea, applied to the government of societies, 
that Quesnay and his school founded their doctrine, which they 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 13 

very properly styled Physiocratie, or the government of nature; 
that is to say, the empire restored to natural laws by the abol- 
ition of all human laws which interfere with the application of 
them. Adam Smith borrowed from the Physiocrates the fund- 
amental ideas of his famous treatise on the Wealth of Nations, 
a work which he would have dedicated to QueSnay, if the 
death of that learned man had not prevented. He believes, 
with the Physiocrates, in the order of nature. " Suppress all 
hindrances," said he, "and a simple system of natural liberty 
will establish itself." Mr. Cliffe Leslie, in his excellent work 
on the Political Economy of Adam Smith, has explained how 
this system of unlimited freedom, which was founded on the 
idea then entertained of the goodness of man and the per- 
fectness of nature, came to be established in the eighteenth 
century. Out of it sprang that grand movement of civiliza- 
tion which aspires after religious and civil liberty, and the 
equality of human rights, and which is ever in revolt against 
the tyranny of priests and kings. Perceiving that governments 
and bad laws impoverished nations by iniquitous taxation, 
enthralled labor by absurd ordinances, and ruined agriculture 
by crushing exactions, the philosophers of that era occupied 
themselves with social questions, and arrived, of necessity, at 
the point of demanding the abolition of all those human insti- 
tutions, with a view to the attainment of that better order 
which they called natural right, natural liberty, the code of 
nature. It was under the inspiration of those ideas that 
the Physiocrates in France, and Adam Smith in England, 
traced the progress of economic reforms, and that the French 
revolution attempted its political ameliorations. The starting 
point of this profound evolution, which, for a time, led all 
Europe captive, people and sovereigns alike, from Naples to 
St. Petersburg, was an enthusiastic confidence in reason and 
in the sentiments of man, as well as in the order of the 
universe ; it was the optimism of Leibnitz, descended from 
the clouds of philosophic abstraction, and made applicable to 
the organization of society. The good sense of Voltaire led 
him to perceive the falsity of this system, and he wrote 
Candide and la Destruction de Lisbonne. Rousseau, in a letter 
of touching eloquence, defended optimism, which is the basis 
of his philosophy as well as of that of his epoch, and of the 
French revolution. Strangely enough, it was Fourier who 
deduced the ultimate consequences of the physiocratie opti- 
mism of the economists. The selfishness and the vices of man- 
kind seemed to give the lie to the system which maintains 
that all is well, and that with liberty everything arranges 
itself for the best, in the best of worlds. It had been truly 
said that the vices of individuals contributed to the general 
well-being. Adarh Smith had also maintained that men, sim- 
ply by pursuing their own interests, uniformly did the things 
most advantageous to the nation ; and that the rich, for 



14 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

example, in seeking merely the satisfaction of their caprices, 
accomplished the most favorable distribution of products, 
" as though they were led by an invisible hand." Notwith- 
standing this, men continued to say that selfishness must be 
resisted and vice suppressed. This was the recognition of a 
disturbing element ; things did not then arrange themselves 
for the best, in virtue of absolute freedom. Fourier, whose 
logic was restrained neither by the absurd nor the immoral, 
constructed, like Plato, an ideal city, the phalanstery, where 
all the passions were made use of as productive forces, and 
the vices transformed into elements of order and stability ; 
where, consequently, there was no longer anything to repress. 
This was, in truth, natural liberty, the reign of nature. Order 
was created out of disorder. Like M. Caussidiere, in 1848, 
Pierre Leroux has clearly shown that Fourier found the 
germ of his system in the voyages of Bougainville, which pre- 
sented to the eighteenth century, in the paradise of the island 
of Otaheite, a picture of the happiness which the natural man 
enjoys when emancipated from laws and human convention- 
alities. Diderot echoed the enthusiasm which this piquant 
sketch of primitive manners evoked. It was a logical con- 
clusion: if all is well in nature, it is the natural man who 
ought to be our model. Absolute laissez /aire conducts us, at 
last, to the island of Tahiti. 

Down- to the present day, the majority of economists have 
remained in subjection to the ideas of physiocratic optimism, 
which prevailed at the birth of their science, as well in 
France as in England. They constantly speak of the natural 
order of societies and of natural laws. They invoke these 
only and desire to see only these prevail. Not to multiply 
citations, I shall borrow only a single passage from one of 
the most eminent and least systematic of contemporary econ- 
omists, M. Hyppolite Passy. " Political economy," says M. 
Passy, " is the science of the laws in virtue of which wealth 
is created, distributed, and consumed. We have only to 
ascertain these laws and to apply them. The object to be 
attained is the greatest good of all, but the most enlightened 
economists do not hesitate to believe that natural laws con- 
duce to this result and that they alone conduce to it, and that 
it is impossible for men to substitute their individual con- 
ceptions for Divine wisdom." This is a perfect summing up 
of the pure doctrine of the economists on this point. Now, it 
will be easy to show, that an idea embodied in it is utterly 
unsound, that it answers to nothing real, and is in radical 
opposition to Christianity and to facts. 

I search for these " natural laws " which the economists are 
constantly talking about, and I do not find them. I understand 
that these words are employed where the question concerns 
the phenomena of the physical universe, which do, in fact, 
from the ■ infinitely little which we know of them, seem to 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. IS 

obey immutable laws. I will admit, also, that we invoke 
natural laws for animals, which, live and obtain their suste- 
nance in a similar manner, but not for man, that perfectible 
being, whose manners, customs, and institutions are changing 
ceaselessly. The laws which govern the production and 
especially the distribution of wealth, are very different in 
different countries, and in different times. Where, then, are 
these natural laws in force ? Is it, as Rousseau; Diderot, and 
Bougainville supposed, in those islands of the Pacific where 
the spontaneous products of the soil permit men to live, 
without labor, in the bosom of an innocent community of 
goods and of women ? Is it in antiquity, where the slavery 
of the laborer procured for a chosen elite of citizens, the 
means of attaining to the ideal of a genuine aristocracy ? Is it 
in the middle ages, under the reign of feudalism and of cor- 
porations, in that golden age when the papacy dominated 
over nations and over kings ? Is it in Russia, where the land 
belongs to the Czar, to the nobles, and to the communes 
which parcel out the territory, at stated intervals, among all 
the inhabitants ? Is it in England, where, owing to primo- 
geniture, the soil is monopolized by a small number of fami- 
lies, or in France, where the laws of the revolution divide 
the territory among five millions of proprietors, at the risk 
of crumbling it into particles ? 

Industrial wealth was formerly produced under the domes- 
tic roof of the artisan assisted by a few companions ; now 
it is produced in vast workshops by an army of workmen, 
tied to the inexorable movements of machinery propelled by 
steam ; which of these two methods is conformable to the 
natural order ? In a primitive state of society, the soil was 
the undivided property of the tribe, and this disposition of 
it was so general that it might, without doubt, have been 
recognized as a natural law. At the present time, in countries 
which have reached the industrial stage, individual property, 
which formerly did not exist except in respect of movables, 
is applicable also to the realty : is there, in this change, any 
violation of the Providential order.? Under the influence of 
new ideas of justice and of certain economic necessities, all 
social institutions are modified, and it is probable that they 
will be modified still further. If we believe them to be still 
imperfect, we should not be forbidden to seek to modify them. 
'■'■ Laissons faire" cry the economists, "liberty meets all wants." 
Doubtless, but what shall I do ? Laws do not make them- 
selves, it is we, ourselves, who vote them ; and it devolves 
upon the economist to show me what the laws are which 
ought to be enacted. He will, doubtless, say, with M. Passy, 
" It is not for man to substitute his individual conceptions 
for those of the Divine wisdom." But is, then, the civil code 
which to-day regulates the distribution of property in France 
an emanation of the Divine wisdom ? Is it not rather the 



l6 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

product of the juridical conceptions of the men of the French 
revolution ? When, like M. Le Play, it is sought to restore 
the liberty of testamentary disposition, or when it is proposed, 
as in the Belgian Chambers, to limit the degrees of consan- 
guinity in the succession to intestates, is there, in these, a 
violation of the decrees of Divine wisdom ? The economists 
forget that the bases of every economic regulation among 
civilized peoples are laws framed by legislators, which are, 
consequently, subject to be changed, if need be, and not 
pretended, immutable, natural laws to which we must submit 
blindly and forever. 

In societate aut vis, aut lex viget, says Bacon ; if you do not 
choose to submit to the dominion of laws, you will fall under 
the dominion of force. With men in a state of nature, every- 
thing belongs to the strongest. It is the duty of the State, 
on the contrary, to cause justice to preside over the distri- 
bution of property, in order that each "person may enjoy the 
fruits of his own labor. Suppress all intervention of the 
State, and apply the absolute doctrine of laissez /aire, and 
everything, as Bonnet says, is subject to be preyed upon; 
( tout est en proie!) The best-armed slays the one who is least 
prepared for the battle ; and he either feeds upon his flesh 
or on the products of his labor. This is precisely what hap- 
pens among animals, where, in that strife for existence, of 
which Darwin speaks, the best endowed species take the 
place of those which are less so. The Positivist economists 
also say, following the idea of Darwin, that every superior 
position is the consequence of superior aptitudes in him who 
has conquered it. Everything which is, is well. Every man 
has, everywhere, the well-being to which he is entitled, just 
as every country has the government which it deserves. So 
much the worse for the weak and the simple, room for the 
strong and the able ! Might does not hold dominion over 
right, but might is the necessary attribute of right. Such is 
the natural law. 

Those who are constantly invoking natural laws, and who 
repel what they call artificial organizations, forget that_ the 
government of civilized countries is the result of political and 
economic art, and that the natural government is that of 
savage tribes. Among them, in fact, the law of Darwin domin- 
ates as among the animal species : there are no ordinances, no 
State, no restraints, but perfect liberty in all things and for 
all men. Such was, indeed, the ideal of Rousseau, ever faith- 
ful to the doctrine of the code of nature. Civilization, on 
the contrary, consists in struggling against nature. Just in 
the degree that agriculture and industry attain perfection, 
more and more employment is given to artificial methods, 
invented by science, for procuring for us wherewith to sat- 
isfy our needs. Through the art of healing and of main- 
taining health, we wrestle with the diseases with which nature 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. l^ 

afflicts us, and thus prolong an average of twenty years to 
forty. 

It is by the art of government that statesmen obtain the 
supremacy of order and permit men to labor and to better 
their condition, instead of endlessly warring on each other 
like wolves, either for vengeance or for defense. It is to the 
art of making good laws that we owe the security of prop- 
erty and of life. It is by fighting against our passions that 
we succeed in accomplishing our duties. Everything is the 
product of art, because civilization is in everything the oppo- 
site of a state of nature. The child of nature is not that 
good and reasonable being dreamt of by the philosophers ; 
he is a selfish animal, who seeks to satisfy his desires with- 
out caring for the rights of others, regardless of wrong, slay- 
ing whomsoever makes resistance to him, and it is not 
too much to compel him, by all the restraints >of morality, of 
religion, and of laws, to bend to the exact noG? > of social 
order. We must conquer the savage element in him, or he 
puts civilization itself in peril. It is, therefore, a dangerous 
error to suppose that we need only to disarm the State, and 
to liberate mankind from all restraints, that the supremacy of 
order may be established. 

I can discover in political economy but one single natural 
law, namely, this, that man, in order to live, must make a 
living. All the rest is governed by habits, by customs, by 
laws which are continually changing, and which, just in pro- 
portion as justice and morality enlarge their sphere, are fur- 
ther and further removed from that natural order over which 
force and chance preside. If there is any natural law which 
seems to be indisputable, it is that which commands all liv- 
ing beings to obtain subsistence by their own efforts. Man- 
kind has, nevertheless, succeeded in emancipating itself from 
that law, and, by means of slavery and serfdom, the stronger 
have been able to live in idleness at the expense of the 
weaker. No doubt, whatever happens is the result of cer- 
tain necessities which may, in strictness, be denominated 
natural ; but it is by resisting those necessities that progress 
and perfection are attained in human societies. From the 
mere fact that institutions or laws exist, it by no means fol- 
lows that they are necessary, immutable, and alone conform- 
able to the natural order. 

The physiocratic optimism which has inspired political 
economy from its inception, and which is interwoven, at the 
present time, with all its speculations, is not only contra- 
dicted by facts, but is opposed to the fundamental principle 
of Christianity. A certain school has reproached political 
economy with being an immoral science, because it urges 
man to the pursuit of nothing but his own material advant- 
age, and to live only for sensual gratification. Since it is 
the object of political economy to find cut how societies 



l8 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

ought to be organized, in order to arrive at a condition of 
general well-being, it is nothing more than a revolt against 
asceticism, and not against Christianity, .which, by no means, 
requires of us to give up everything ; but the idea that order 
is established spontaneously in society, as in the universe, by 
virtue of natural laws, is entirely opposed to the Christian 
idea both of the world and of humanity. According to 
Christianity man is so thoroughly depraved that it requires 
the direct intervention of God and the constant working of 
His grace to keep him in the right way and to accomplish 
his salvation ; the world itself is so much a prey to evil that 
Christians long ago expected, and in certain sects still expect, 
the palingenesia, " new heavens and a new earth," according to 
the Messianic promises. The evil that is within us, there- 
fore, must be put under subjection by the sentiment of duty, 
and that which is outside of us, by laws inspired by a senti- 
ment of justice. If we are to hold with the orthodox 
economists, that the better order of things arrived at results 
spontaneously from unlimited laissez fairs, we must suppose 
man either to be good, or to be necessarily obedient to 
inspirations which make him act in conformity to the general 
good. This idea is not only the opposite of Christianity, but 
it is also contradicted by facts. If the human animal is let 
loose you have the warfare of all against all, the bellum 
omnium contra omnes of Hobbes. We find this warfare first in 
the caverns of the pre-historic times, the home of cannibalism, 
later in the forests of the barbarous age, and at the present 
day in the haunts of industry. Even in nature there does 
not prevail an order of justice which we could safely take as 
our exemplar ; the utmost that we find in her is a rude 
species of equilibrium which we call the natural order. In 
nature, as in history, injustice often triumphs and justice is 
overborne. When a king-fisher has, by patience and address, 
succeeded in seizing its prey and is bearing it homeward to 
its hungry offspring, and an eagle, freebooter of the air, 
pounces on it, and robs it of the fruit of its labors, the 
same sentiment of justice is aroused in us, as when an idle 
master forces his bondman to maintain him on the product 
of his toil. If Cain, the follower of the chase and the war- 
rior, kills Abel, the peaceful shepherd, we side with the vic- 
tim against the assassin. Thus it is that we are constantly 
revolting against facts which take place in nature and in 
society. The Chinese, and those excellent women who see 
in every event that happens an effect of the Divine will, are 
optimists after the manner of the economists who believe in 
the empire of natural laws. Physiocratic optimism also puts 
its trust in the judgment of God and in the ordeals which are 
found among all nations, for the custom of ordeals springs 
out of the idea that God always causes the innocent to tri- 
umph. Job, on the contrary, protests against this immoral 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 1 9 

doctrine, and the children of Israel, down-trodden and scat- 
tered among the nations, do not yet despair of justice, but 
await the hour of recompense. The facts which e'xist and 
the present organization of society are, doubtless, the neces- 
sary result of certain causes, but those causes are not natural 
laws, they are human facts : ideas, manners, beliefs, which 
may be modified, and from the modification of which other 
laws and other customs will be deduced. 

The theory of natural laws has had two other unfortunate 
consequences : it has discarded all notion of an ideal to be 
attained, and has very considerably narrowed the conclusions 
of political economy. In the writings of the orthodox 
economists, the final object to be striven for is never men- 
tioned, nor the reforms which justice might demand. Does 
distribution take place in the way most favorable to the pro- 
gress of humanity and to the happiness of all ? Is consump- 
tion conformable to moral laws ? Is it not desirable that 
there should be less of hardship among the lower classes 
and less of luxury among the upper ? Have we not economic 
duties to fulfill ? Since the primitive era, the organization of 
society has been materially modified ; will it not undergo still 
further changes, and in what direction ? These are some of 
the questions which official political economy never touches, 
because they do not, it is alleged, enter into its domain. We 
have seen that Bastiat and Cherbuliez point out the reasons. 
The strict science does not concern itself with what ought to 
be but only with what is ; it can, therefore, neither propose 
an ideal nor labor to attain it. It simply describes how 
riches are produced, distributed and consumed ; and thence 
results the poverty of its practical conclusions. In short, if 
it were enough simply to proclaim liberty in order that every- 
thing should arrange itself in the best way, and that har- 
mony might be established, the office of political economy is 
very nearly ended in countries which, like England, the 
Netherlands and Switzerland, have adopted free trade and 
free competition. It will, no doubt, have rendered an import- 
ant service in promoting the abolition of the restraints which 
prevented the expansion of productive forces, and a better 
distribution of labor ; but at the present day its functions 
are nearly exhausted. We are approaching the last pages of 
the book, and there will soon be nothing left but to close it 
and to lay it respectfully on the shelf. 

On this point, I think, the criticisms of the Socialists of 
the Chair are well founded. In aiming to make political 
economy an exact science its domain has been too often nar- 
rowed ; it cannot separate itself from politics, morality, law 
and religion. Since it tries to discover how men can best 
arrive at the satisfaction of their wants, it ought to tell us 
what are the forms of government, of property, of religious 
worship, the methods of distribution, and the moral and 



20 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

religious ideas most favorable to the production of wealth. 
It ought to present to us the ideal to be attained, and point 
out the way of reaching it. To obtain liberty is most desir- 
able, but we ought to know further what use to make of it. 
In civilized society, not less than in the primitive forest, if 
liberty is not put under the restraints and ordinances of 
morals and of law, it ends in the oppression of the weak 
and the domination of the stronger and more capable ; this 
will speedily occur not less in the domain of economy than 
in that of education. The disciples of Darwin will say that 
this is the law of nature and of " selection." Very well; but 
if it has the effect of crushing me inexorably, I may, at 
least, be excused from giving it my blessing. 

Thus, as it seems to me, has the official political economy 
been justly reproached with enunciating as absolute truths, 
propositions which, in reality, are falsified by facts, just as 
though in mechanics we were to formulate laws of motion 
without taking any account of resistances and friction. 

It is these abstract and general formulas which have 
inspired practical statesmen like M. Thiers with a great dis- 
trust of economic axioms. Let me cite some examples of 
these axioms. Since the time of Ricardo it has been a 
dogma of the science that wages, like profits, tend to equal- 
ize themselves, because free competition speedily brings an 
increased supply to the point where the highest remuneration 
is to be obtained. Now Cliffe Leslie has shown, by statistics 
gathered both in England and on the Continent, that no 
such equality of wages really exists ; but on the contrary, 
that the difference of compensations for the same industry, 
between one place and another, is greater at the present day 
than formerly.* 

It is also an economic axiom, often quoted in the recent 
discussions of the double standard, that the abundance of 
silver is an evil, inasmuch as business is carried on just as 
well with a small as with a large quantity of money. And 
yet the daily quotations of European money markets prove 
that a -scarcity of money causes crises, while an abundance of 
it lowers the rate of discount, and gives, in consequence, an 
impulse to production and to transactions. Free trade holds 
that the balance of trade is of no consequence, because prod- 
ucts are exchanged against products, and we have only to 
congratulate ourselves if foreigners furnish us commodities 
cheaper than our own people. This would be true if all 
peoples composed only one nation, and if all men were cap- 
italists. Take the case, however, of a nation which is 
obliged to sell its public securities and shares in private 
corporations abroad. Products are exchanged against prod- 

* In Belgium the fects are very curious. At the moment I write these lines, near Ypres, I 
am paying for cutting hay a franc and a half a day ; in the neighborhood of Liege, they are 
paying four francs. There, a day laborer earns three francs or three francs and a half; in 
Campine only a franc and a quarter ; and yet the farm hand in Campine performs more labor. 



NEW TENLENCIES OF lOLITICAL ECONOMY. 2t 

ucts, as before, but it is henceforth the foreigner owning 
these securities, who enjoys the income which others labor 
to produce. If England were able to furnish to France all 
manufactured articles more cheaply than France could pro- 
duce them at home, the rich consumers in France would be 
the gainers, but French workmen would be deprived of work, 
and would either disappear, or would have to go to England 
to pursue their occupations. It was thus that in France, after 
the suppression of provincial tariffs, industries abandoned the 
less favored localities and established themselves in places 
where they met with more advantageous conditions. Doubt- 
less, if the human race were considered from a cosmopolitan 
point of view, and if all nations were regarded as constitut- 
ing a single people, it would matter little at what points 
population centered or wealth was accumulated, provided 
only that a general progress resulted ; but can we reasonably 
demand of any people such a disregard of its own peculiar 
interests and of its own particular future ? 

Moreover, if we consider civilization in all its bearings, and 
not merely the accumulation of wealth, is it not desirable 
that each nationality should maintain its perfect independence 
and its utmost power, in order that each shall contribute its 
own peculiar note to the grand harmony of human society ? * 

Such, at least, is the position which political economy has 
assumed in Germany since the time of List ; and hence in 
that country the science is generally called the Science of 
National Economy. 

It seems to me, also, that the elder economists have 
attempted to abridge too much the functions of the State. 
When one considers all the injury which bad Governments 
have done to the people, especially in France, one under- 
stands the desire to abridge their power and to restrict their 
functions ; but the laissez faire school, in theory at least, has 
overstepped the line, and those countries which should abso- 
lutely follow its counsels would have reason to repent of 
them, for they would find themselves outstripped by others. 
England has come to a recognition of this truth, and although 
that country is a model of self government, so far from per- 
severing in the course marked out by the economists, it is 
every year imposing new functions on the State, which now 
intervenes in industrial and agricultural contracts, with a 
detail and with restrictions which would be hardly admitted 
elsewhere. 

In Prussia, everything is under control of the State : its 
lands, its military establishment, its agriculture, its industry, 
its religion, and, lastly, its education of all grades — that 
principal source of its power. From being once no more than 

* In a work published as long ago as 1857, I made use of what is called the new method : 
I endeavored in it to show that the free traders defended a just cause with bad arguments, 
and a useful reform with indefMnsible axioms. See Etudes, historiques et critiques sur la 
liberie du commerce international. 



2 2 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITIC AT, ECONOMY. 

the sandy wastes of the Marquis of Brandenburg, the jest of 
Voltaire and Frederick II, it is now the Empire of Germany. 
Some years ago, a President of New Granada on assuming 
the Presidential chair, being imbued with pure economic 
doctrines, announced that "thereafter the State would con- 
fine itself to its legitimate functions, and would leave all en- 
terprises to individual initiation." The economists applauded. 
After a short time the highways were impassible, the har- 
bors were washed away, personal security was at an end, and 
education abandoned to the priests, or, in other words, 
reduced to nothing. There was a return to a state of nature 
— to the primeval forest. In Turkey and in Greece the State 
does nothing, because the public treasuries are empty ; it is 
dangerous even to visit the spot in order to attest the bene- 
fits of the system. Let us suppose two countries, side by 
side, of equal power and resources, in one of which the 
Government carefully abstains from all intervention, and, as 
a consequence, individual necessities exhaust all its products ; 
in the other, the State withholds from the consumption of 
individuals, which is often useless and even hurtful, the 
wherewithal to pay for all services affecting the public inter- 
ests ; it opens highways and harbors, it builds railways, 
constructs schoolhouses, endows liberally all scientific estab- 
lishments, encourages men of learning, stimulates the higher 
arts as was done at Athens, and finally, by means of obliga- 
tory education and obligatory military service, takes the ris- 
ing generations under its control in order to develop their 
bodily and mental forces. 

When a half century has passed by, which of these two 
peoples will be the more highly civilized, the richest, the 
most powerful ? In Belgium, the State, which, since 1833, has 
established the railway system, has rendered the economical 
existence of the country secure by the development of its 
industries, in spite of its separation from Holland, which 
deprived it of its principal seaport. It is in a similar man- 
ner that Italy is, at the present day, cementing her national 
unity, and that Russia is laying the foundations of her future 
greatness. 

The State has, therefore, a double mission to fulfill. The 
first part of it, which no one disputes, but the full scope of 
which few persons understand, consists in subjecting society 
to the rule of order and of law ; that is to say, in ordain- 
ing laws as nearly conformable to distributive justice as the 
advancement of social culture will permit. The second con- 
sists in providing out of the public purse, through means of 
taxes levied proportionately upon individuals, everything 
which is indispensable to progress, and for which private ini- 
tiative is not sufficient. 

An incontestable merit of the new economists is that they 
approach the study of the social question with a true senti- 



NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY, 23. 

merit of Christian charity, but at the same time in a strictly 
scientific spirit, supporting themselves throughout by histori- 
cal facts, and thus escaping Utopian theories. 

In order to combat the socialists, Bastiat and his entire 
school have maintained the theory of a natural harmony of 
interests, and have thus .been obliged to deny the existence 
of any problem to be solved. It is a dangerous error. In 
truth, the social question dates very far back ; it had its 
origin at the time when real property ceased to be held in 
common, and, as a consequence, inequalities of condition 
be^an to show themselves. This it was which disturbed the 
Greek ' republics and hastened their downfall. This it was 
which agitated the Roman republic in spite of the palliative 
of agrarian laws, again and again renewed in vain. It reap- 
peared in the communities of the middle ages, as soon as 
industry had acquired some headway among them, and later 
when the Reformation had established religious freedom in 
society, and when the French revolution made proclamation 
' of equality and fraternity ; but in our day it presents so 
grave and general a character as to compel the attention of 
statesmen, of publicists, and especially of economists ; for it 
involves the safety of civilization itself, put in peril as it is 
oy the demands of the working classes. 

Economic interests will always be found among the prin- 
cipal causes of the grander evolutions of history — a truth 
■coarsely expressed by Napoleon when he said: "The seat of 
revolutions is .the belly." 

The new economists have published a considerable number 
of special studies on the social question in one or another 
of its phases, and as they pique themselves on being " real- 
ists," that is to say, on supporting their principles by statis- 
tics, they must, without doubt, contribute to the advancement 
of the science. In its summing up, the new doctrine is still 
somewhat vague both as . to premises and conclusions, and 
when it endeavors to define the relations of political eco- 
nomy to morality and to law, it is less original and less new 
than some of its more enthusiastic followers are willing to 
admit. Referring only to contemporary economists, who are 
occupied with this subject, it will suffice to mention the 
writings of Dameth, Rondelet, and Boudrillart, and the well- 
known though badly translated ( into French ) work of M. 
Minghetti, now President of the Council in Italy. It seems 
to me, however, that such writers as Cliffe Leslie, Luzzati, 
Frederiksen, Schmoller, Held, Wagner, Contzen, and Nasse, 
are better equipped than the school of Bastiat, in a con- 
test with the existing scientific socialism, which supports 
itself in precisely the same way, on abstract formulas and 
natural economic laws, in its assaults on social order and in 
its demand for a radical reconstruction of society. Bastiat 
imperilled his defence at the very outset, by placing himself 



24 NEW TENDENCIES OF POLITICAL ECONOMY. 

too exclusively on the ground of theory, for he was thus 
compelled to contradict facts and to deny doctrines which 
are admitted by all economists, as, for example, the classic 
theory of rent. 

The realistic economists, on the contrary, lay hold on prin- 
ciples and fortify themselves by facts, in order that they 
may follow up Utopian theories step by step, being careful 
to distinguish possible reforms from those which are not pos- 
sible, and the rights of the human race from the exactions 
of covetousness and envy. Such is the mission of safety 
which to-day, more than ever before, is imposed on political 
economy in presence of the new aspects and rapid develop- 
ment which socialism, especially in Germany, has recently 
assumed. 



APPENDIX. 

On the evening of the 31st of May, 1876, the Political 
Economy Club of London celebrated the looth anniversary 
of the publication of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Mr. 
Gladstone presided on the occasion, and speeches were made 
by Mr. Lowe, M. L^on Say, the French Minister of Finance, 
M. ;fimile de Laveleye, of Belgium, Professor J. E. Thorold 
Rogers, Mr. Newmarch, Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Forster, and Mr. 
Leonard Courtney. Professor de Laveleye addressed the 
meeting in French. The following is a translation of his 
remarks, as reported by the London Times, in its issue of 
June 5, 1876 : 

" I should hardly venture to address so distinguished an 
assembly, in presence of the illustrious statesman who is 
presiding over it, and of another statesman who worthily 
bears the name of the great French economist, Jean-Baptiste 
Say (who might with propriety be called the Adam Smith of 
the Continent ), did I not desire, in the name of my country — 
Belgium — to do honor to the eminent Scottish economist, 
whose doctrines of free trade have been adopted by my 
countrymen, to the great benefit of the Belgian people. In 
no other country, not even, I believe, in England, have those 
benefits been more highly appreciated ; for the Chambers of 
Commerce of Belgium have come to demand not only the 
abandonment of every species of protection, but the complete 
abolition of customs duties. 

" The reason why we ought to consider Adam Smith as one 
of the great benefactors of the human race, is not merely 
because he studied into the ' causes of the wealth of nations,' 
and pointed out the methods of increasing production, but 
because he demonstrated that the interests of nations are 
closely bound together, and has thus given us a rational 
basis of human brotherhood, the sublime conception of which 
Christianity first introduced into the world. 

" In the last century, the most enlightened men, such for 
example as Voltaire, were of opinion that the greatness of 
one's own country could not be promoted without at the 
same time desiring to enfeeble other nations, and this per- 
nicious error is still unfortunately widely prevalent. 

" Economists, on the contrary, have proved that each State 
is interested that every other State should prosper, in order 
to furnish as wide a market as possible for its own produc- 
tions, an idea happily expressed by a French poet in these 
verses : 



26 APPENDIX. 

Aimer, aimer c'est etre utile a soi, 
Se faire aimer, c'est etre utile aux autres. 

" In my estimation, the first part of the programme of the 
political economist, that which concerns the production of 
wealth, may be considered as almost exhausted. When we 
observe the prodigious accumulation of wealth which is to be 
everywhere met with in 'England ; when we note the stupen- 
dous figures of its foreign commerce, and of its domestic 
exchanges ; the 130 or 140 milliards of francs ($ 26,000,000,000 
to $28,000,000,000) covered by the operation of its Clearing 
House ; when we reflect on the other hand, that France has 
been able to pay a war indemnity of five or six milliards, 
besides spending at least three or four milliards more in a 
formidable struggle, and, notwithstanding, finds itself to-day 
as prosperous as ever, with a metallic reserve in the Bank of 
France of two milliards, an accumulation of the precious 
metals wholly without precedent, we are led to believe that, 
owing to the marvelous progress of the sciences and arts, 
mankind are able, at the present day, to produce all that is 
needful to satisfy their rational wants. What is now needed 
is to enter upon the second part of the economic programme, 
that which concerns the distribution of wealth. The object 
to be attained, as I think all the world will now admit, is 
to ameliorate the condition of the laboring classes in such a 
manner that each person may enjoy a measure of well-being 
proportioned to the part which he has taken in production, 
or, to sum the matter up in a single word, to realize in the 
economic world that formula of justice to each according to his 
works. 

" But it is chiefly upon this point that there has lately 
arisen a division in the ranks of the economists. On the one 
hand, the elder school, which, for want of a better term, I 
shall denominate the orthodox school, holds that every thing 
is governed by natural laws. The other school, which its 
adversaries have styled the Socialists of the Chair — Katheder- 
Socialisten — but which should more properly be called the 
historical school, or, as the Germans say, the school of the 
realists, maintains that distribution is regulated, in part, no 
doubt, by free contract, but still more by civil and political 
institutions, by religious beliefs, by moral sentiments, by cus- 
toms, and by historical traditions. 

" You will observe that there is opened here an immense 
field of study which comprehends the relations of political 
economy with morality, with the idea of justice, with law, 
with religion, with history, and which allies it to the whole 
circle of the social sciences. Such, in my humble opinion, is 
the present mission of political economy. This is the view of 
it which has been held by nearly all the German economists, 
many of whom have attained a European celebrit)'', such as 
Rau, Roscher, Knies, Nasse, Schafler, and SchmoUer ; in Italy 



APPENDIX. 27 

there is also a group of kindred writers already well known, 
such as Minghetti, Luzzati, and Forti ; in France, there are 
Wolowski, -Lavergne, Passy, Courcelle-Seneuil, Leroy-Beaulieu ; 
and in England are those who I have need here neither to 
mention nor to praise, because they are better known to you 
than to me. 

" I will advert, in closing, to the remarkable fact that the 
two- schools equally invoke the authority of Adam Smith, and 
with reason, as it seems to me, since his remarkable work is 
such a perfect example, and one so fraught with useful con- 
sequences, of the alliance between the two scientific methods, 
the deductive method and the inductive method, that one is, 
in a certain sense, almost tempted to subscribe to the recent 
assertion of an American economist, that after Shakespeare, 
it is Adam Smith who has done the greatest honor to 
England." 



^M'-m^^. 



■^%Xi^ 



■^:.^ W 



^^.?#y-4 



n 


















»»--.. 1 

■^'•V- 



^^'^i^^'- 



^'%^t"*^' 



i1# 



1 -L.. * \ 1 



% / 



^^ %^^ 1 



^^^^ 



'■-^ 



v-*,-«i ^^^i*^-' 'Sf 



■*ftA, ~-M^ ^ %^V^ 



Tv • M- - »*■ ?3PT -^3/' 



^^.* ^ - *.:x ■■y^:V.3''.i..-^^'-- 



' '^^wj^> 



< u 






3!^"%i*..,vH- %