The Free Trade Doctrine of the Classical Economists: No Unconditional Subscription to Trade Liberalisation

Yıl 2021, Cilt: 5 Sayı: 2, 390 - 403, 17.05.2021

Heinz Kurz

https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.915001

Cited By: 1

Öz

The paper discusses the views of the British classical economists David Hume, Adam Smith and David Ricardo on international trade and trade liberalisation. While they were in favour of free trade, they did not unconditionally subscribers to the free trade doctrine, but tied it to the condition of free competition. As Adam Smith insisted with regard to the East India Company, a trading monopoly, trade was "ruinous and destructive" to India and several other countries. The German economist Friedrich List insisted that free trade cannot generally be the starting point of economic relationships amongst nations, but only the terminal point, after the nations involved had developed their productive powers and competitiveness.

Anahtar Kelimeler

East India Company, Free Trade, Protectionism

Kaynakça

• Corbin, L. and Perry, M. (eds) (2019). Free Trade Agreements: Hegemony or Harmony. Singapore: Springer Nature.
• Hume, D. ([1739-40] 1882). A Treatise of Human Nature Being an Attempt to Introduce the Experimental Method of Reasoning into Moral Subjects and Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edited by T. H. Green and T. J. Grose. London: Longmans Green, and Co.
• Hume, D. ([1741 et seq.] 1985). Essays. Moral, Political and Literary. Edited by E. F. Miller, Indinapolis: Liberty Fund.
• Krugman, P. (1995). Development, Geography, and Economic Theory, Cambridge, MA, und London.
• Kurz, H. D. (2010). Technical progress, capital accumulation and income distribution in classical economics: Adam Smith, David Ricardo and Karl Marx. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 17(5): 1183–222.
• Kurz, H. D. (2011). Von der “Natur des Menschen” und der “kommerziellen Gesellschaft”. Oder: Über “Nebenwirkungen” und “wirkliche Ursachen”. Aufklärung und Kritik, 18(1): 100-126.
• Kurz, H. D. (2015a). Adam Smith on markets, competition and violations of natural liberty. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 40(2): 615-638.
• Kurz, H. D. (2015b). David Ricardo: On the art of “elucidating economic principles” in the face of a “labyrinth of difficulties”. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 22(5): 818–51.
• Kurz, H. D. (2017). A plain man’s guide to David Ricardo’s principle of comparative advantage. In S. Senga, M. Fujimoto and T. Tabuchi (eds), Ricardo and International Trade. London and New York: Routledge.
• Kurz, H. D. (2019). Adam Smith über das Merkantil- und das Agrikultursystem. In H. Hansen and T. Kraski (eds), Das Staatsverständnis von Adam Smith. Baden-Baden: Nomos. Forthcoming.
• List, F. (1841). Das nationale System der politischen Ökonomie. Stuttgart: Cotta.
• Naorodji, D. (1901). Poverty and Un-British Rule in India. London: Swan, Sonnenschein & Co.
• North, D. C., Wallis, J. J. and Weingast, B. R. (2009). Violence and Social Orders. A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Ricardo, D. (1951–73). The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo. Edited by P. Sraffa with the collaboration of M. H. Dobb, 11 vols, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cited as Works, vol. number, page number.
• Salvadori, N. (2019). Ricardo’s Theory of Growth and Accumulation. A Modern View. The Graz Schumpeter Lectures. London: Routledge. To be published.
• Samuelson, Paul A. (1969). The way of an economist. In Paul Samuelson (ed.), Inter- national Economic Relations: Proceedings of the Third Congress of the International Economic Association. London: Macmillan, pp. 1–11.
• Smith, A. ([1776] 1976). An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, two vols. In The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, eds R. H. Campbell and A. S. Skinner, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cited as WN, book number, chap. number, section number, paragraph number.
• Sraffa, P. (1930). An alleged correction of Ricardo. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 44(3): 539–44.