Can a Smithian Framework Be Used to Analyse the Importance of the Atlantic Economy to the 18th Century British Lead over France?
Can a Smithian framework be used to analyse the importance of the Atlantic economy to the 18th century British lead over France?
Whilst few historians would seek to denigrate the potency of Adam Smith’s ‘The Wealth of Nations’ in continuing to provoke debate, there are many, no doubt, who would question the validity of applying a Smithian framework to account for the impact of the Atlantic economy in establishing British industrial and commercial predominance over France. If we adopt a manifestly reductionist definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework; an expansion of the market allowing for greater trade, a crucial precondition of the division of labour, it becomes not only possible to ‘contextualize those hegemonic models of Smithian growth in which the French failed to embrace competitive factor and commodity markets’[1], as O’Brien has, but also allows for a total rejection of the role of the Atlantic economy in accounting for 18th century British predominance, something O’Brien, Allen[2], North and Weingest[3] have done. Smith, himself, states that although European markets greatly expanded it inevitably results in ‘the shopkeepers and other traders of England [attempting] to secure to themselves the monopoly of [the colony’s] custom’[4] thus ‘[hindering] the capital of that country’[5]. Naturally, with such a definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework it would appear that Atlantic trade actually serves to imperil economic development rather than bolster it. Yet, if a more nuanced definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework is used, which not only takes into account the role of the state in establishing conditions conducive to growth but also the internal theoretical tension inherent in the book itself surrounding the deleterious effects of monopolies versus the likelihood of any nation ensuring their destruction, then it is not only possible to repudiate O’Brien’s contention but it also becomes possible to strengthen the
Whilst few historians would seek to denigrate the potency of Adam Smith’s ‘The Wealth of Nations’ in continuing to provoke debate, there are many, no doubt, who would question the validity of applying a Smithian framework to account for the impact of the Atlantic economy in establishing British industrial and commercial predominance over France. If we adopt a manifestly reductionist definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework; an expansion of the market allowing for greater trade, a crucial precondition of the division of labour, it becomes not only possible to ‘contextualize those hegemonic models of Smithian growth in which the French failed to embrace competitive factor and commodity markets’[1], as O’Brien has, but also allows for a total rejection of the role of the Atlantic economy in accounting for 18th century British predominance, something O’Brien, Allen[2], North and Weingest[3] have done. Smith, himself, states that although European markets greatly expanded it inevitably results in ‘the shopkeepers and other traders of England [attempting] to secure to themselves the monopoly of [the colony’s] custom’[4] thus ‘[hindering] the capital of that country’[5]. Naturally, with such a definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework it would appear that Atlantic trade actually serves to imperil economic development rather than bolster it. Yet, if a more nuanced definition of what constitutes a Smithian framework is used, which not only takes into account the role of the state in establishing conditions conducive to growth but also the internal theoretical tension inherent in the book itself surrounding the deleterious effects of monopolies versus the likelihood of any nation ensuring their destruction, then it is not only possible to repudiate O’Brien’s contention but it also becomes possible to strengthen the
Bibliography: Smith, Adam, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. K. Sutherland (Oxford, 1993). Allen, Robert C. 'Progress and poverty in early modern Europe ', Economic History Review, vol. 56, 3 (2003), pp. 403-43 Blaut, James M., The colonizer 's model of the world : geographical diffusionism and Eurocentric history (New York ; London, 1993). North, D.C. and Weingast, Barry R., 'Constitutions and commitment: the evolution of institutional governing public choice in seventeenth-century England ', Journal of Economic History, vol. 49, 4 (1989), pp. 803-32. [2] Allen, Robert C. 'Progress and poverty in early modern Europe ', Economic History Review, vol. 56, 3 (2003), pp. 403-43 [3] North, D.C [4] Smith, Adam, An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. K. Sutherland (Oxford, 1993) p.359 [5] Smith p.355 [6]Acemoglu, Daron, Johnson, Simon and Robinson, James, 'The rise of Europe: Atlantic trade, institutional change, and economic growth ' American Economic Review, vol. 95, 3 (2005), pp. 546-79. [9] Smith p.26 [10] Mikulas Teich & Roy Porter (eds), The Industrial Revolution in national context (1996).p.35