Elementos Liberales Del Mercantilismo

7/31/2019 Elementos Liberales Del Mercantilismo

1/38

The Liberal Elements in English MercantilismAuthor(s): William D. GramppReviewed work(s):Source: The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 66, No. 4 (Nov., 1952), pp. 465-501Published by: Oxford University PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1882100 .Accessed: 01/02/2012 14:53

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Quarterly Journal of Economics.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ouphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1882100?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/1882100?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=oup


2/38

THE

QUARTERLY JOURNALOF ECONOMICS

Vol. LXVI November, 952 No. 4

THE LIBERALELEMENTS INENGLISHMERCANTILISM

By WILLIAMD. GRAMPP

I. The goalof full mployment, 67. II. The means ofull mployment,473.- III. Economicfreedom n mercantilist octrine, 86.-IV. The excep-tions to free xchange, 92. V. The historical oots of mercantilism, 96.VI. Economists n mercantilism199.

The period of mercantilism n England extended from oughly1500 to 1750, and it is customary o apply that word both to theeconomic writings f the period and to its economic practices. It

is also customary odescribemercantilisms the ntithesis f iberal,orclassical,conomic octrine. Adam mith sed ome fhis trong-est invective gainst t, and sincehis time mercantilism as beenthoroughly ondemned y liberal conomists ecause ts practiceswere heverykind f nterference hich hey lways haveregardedas useless, nwise, r mischievous.

By reasoning rom he ctual practices f hemercantilist tates,economistsnd historians suallyhavesupposed hat the doctrinesof the period f mercantilism ere

justificationf

ts nstitutions.It is common n tudies fmercantilismor he uthor oexplain, ay,the restriction f mports y referring oth o the ariff uties f heage and to the concurrent octrine f a favorable alance of trade,or forhim o movefreely mong xpressions f public fficials,aws,economicracts nd discourses,nd to suppose hatbecause articu-lar controls ereexercised,ike price fixing, heymust have beenjustified n the economic writing f the time. No one, of course,wouldwrite frecent conomic olicy hisway. It would eunthink-ableto describe he NewDealby an indiscriminate eferenceotheworks fKeynes nd Hansen nd to the public apers fFranklin .Roosevelt nd the privatememoranda fHarryHopkins nd alwaysto suppose hat whatever he state did or wanted o do found tsrationalizationn economic octrine.

When tudies f mercantilism se a method f this kind, hey465


3/38

466 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OF ECONOMICS

leave an impression ith he reader hat n many ways s distressinglywrong. He must be led to think hat because the mercantilist tates

did not believe in the market s the mechanism or discharging heeconomic unctions f ociety, heeconomists f the ageheld the samebelief nd were n favor of the intricate kind of regulation which waspracticed. More indeed than this s implied. If the practitioners fmercantilism id not understand prices, money, foreign rade, andother matters, t follows hat the economists lso were wanting n aknowledge f these matters. Especially is it implied that the mer-cantilists did not understand he mechanism y which the economicproblem s solved in a free ociety and that this knowledgewas thesignal discovery of classical economics. From this it must be con-cludedthat the mercantilist riters ere particularly eficient ecausethey did not understand how the price system directs resources oparticular mployments nd causes the product o be distributed n acertain way.

None of these mpressions bout mercantilist octrine, s distinctfrom mercantilist ractice, s correct. Yet they re unavoidable f thedoctrine nd the practice re thought o be parts of a unified ystem.It is the purpose of this essay to re-examine he deas expressed y themercantilist riters f England between bout 1550 and 1750 n orderto show that the mercantilists nticipated many mportant lementsof classical economic doctrine, ncluding he classical conception ofself-interest, heprice mechanism, he mutual advantage n exchange,and the place of the state in the economic organization. To this end,it is necessary first o explain that the objective of mercantilist oc-trine was different romwhat it is usually thought o be.

Although do not know that the doctrine has ever been inter-preted as it will be here, a number of writers ave in fact suggestedthat English mercantilism as not wholly mistaken, nd that it wasin some ways a necessary preliminary o classical economics. Mar-shall thought f t this way.' Viner s charitable o the ater writingsfor their traces of free trade theory.2 Keynes observed that themercantilists' monetary theory was a valid effort o connect themoney upply with the rate of nterest.3 Heckscher learly noted the

mercantilist xpressions n favor of a free market, even though hethought hey were not sincere.4 Lipson contends hat the mercantil-1. Alfred Marshall, rinciples f Economics8th ed.), p. 755.2. Jacob Viner, tudies n the Theory f International rade (New York,

1937),pp. 74 et eq.3. J. M. Keynes, The General Theory f Employmentnterest nd Money,

p. 341.4. Eli F. Heckscher,Mercantilism London,1935), I, 323.


4/38

LIBERAL ELEMENTS IN ENGLISHMERCANTILISM 467

ists ought not to be dismissed n quite the cavalier fashion n whichit has been common o treat them.' Edmund Whittaker finds evi-

dences of individualism n the writings f some of them.6 Althoughnone of these men came to the conclusion f this essay, and cannot becited n any way to substantiate t, mention heir work n order notto appear to claim for my viewsmore novelty han they ctually have.

In what follows, he words "mercantilism" nd "mercantilist"refer lways to English doctrine nd to the Englishmenwho expressedit, and, except when explicitly tated, never refer o economic nstitu-tions, practices, istorical ircumstances, r the rulers r administra-tors of the age.

IIt is not n an obviousway that mercantilist nd liberal conomic

policy are related. What indeed is obvious is the great differencebetween the measures which each proposed to advance its policy.The liberals wanted the functions f economic rganization erformedby a market which was as free as possible, and the mercantilists

believed the functions would be performed etter f the market werecontrolled n certain ways. However, here s another way to analyzemercantilist octrine, different rom he common one of comparingits proposed controls with the relative absence of control n liberaldoctrine. It is to examine hepresuppositions f mercantilist octrineand to ask: What did the mercantilist writers elieve was the objec-tive of economicpolicy? What were their measures of control meantto achieve? The answer must be taken from diverse writings f aperiod overing ome two centuries. In generalizing rom hem, hereis the danger of upposing hem o be more consistent han they ctu-ally are, just in order to make the question manageable. But thehazard is worth taking. Mercantilism was an important tage n thedevelopment f economic deas, and a fresh pproach to it may aidin making t more comprehensible.

Had the mercantilist riters een asked for n explicit tatementof their bjective, hey undoubtedly would have said it was to createa strong nd secure England. Although their motives were mixed(as most writers' re) the principal motive was the national nterest.It was not this, however, which made mercantilism ifferent romclassical economics. The classical economists lso were nationalists;they valued the political and military nterest f England above all

5. E. Lipson,A Planned conomy rFreeEnterprise London, 944), hap.2.6. Edmund Whittaker, History f Economic deas (New York, 1943),

pp. 141-42,145-47.


5/38


things nd were ready to sacrifice fficiency nd even ustice n returnfor greater national power. The title of Smith's work describes he

purpose of his policy of laissez faire. The purpose of John Hales'spolicy s also indicated by the title of his work, written bout 1549,A Discourseof the CommonWeal of This Realm of England. Now theword "nationalism" is a piece of intensional anguage, and whenapplied to the economists, as to be shorn of ts inflammatory onno-tation. They were not like Lord Copper, who stood for "strongmutually antagonistic governments verywhere, elf-sufficiency thome, self-assertion broad." Rather they were devoted to God,St. George, nd particularly ngland.

What separated he mercantilists rom he iberal conomistswastheir different eans of advancing the national interest. The mer-cantilists believed the latter required prosperous, ully employed,and growing conomy. The connection between power and wealthwas expressed bout 1548 in the Pleasant Poeyse of Princelie Practiseby Sir William Forest:

For kings f their ommons ometime must id true.The more herefore hepublicwealdoth fflow;The more s their wealth: hisreasonproveth ow.

Among he conditions ecessary or growing conomy he mercantil-ists cited: a brisk trade, adequate domestic pending, proper wageand price structure, particular distribution f income, n excessofexports over mports, diligent nd obedient working lass, securityof private property, he elimination f monopoly, he full utilizationof gricultural ands, n adequate money upply, low rate of nterest,and the full employment f the labor force.

The greatest ttention was given o the money upply, pending,and employment. Spending, r n today's anguage, ffective emand,and employment were regarded s mutually determined: whateverchanged newouldchange he other n the ame direction. The moneysupply n some writings was made a determinant f spending whilein others t was not directly related to spending. To most of themercantilists, he condition f national prosperity as an amount ofspending ufficient o maintain full employment, nd these writers

subordinated the accumulation of bullion and other methods ofincreasing he money upply o the position f determinants f spend-ing. Full employment as taken to be a measure of the quantity ofgoods produced by the economy, nd full employment was the eco-nomic objective of mercantilist olicy, as distinct from ts politicalobjective which was national power.

The objective of full employment was expressed early in the


6/38

LIBERAL ELEMENTSIN ENGLISH MERCANTILISM 469

period of mercantilism y John Hales, who wrote that the stateshould adopt measures which would assure a "great plenty" of goods

and that this required he employment n agriculture nd the townsof all those able to work.7 At the time Hales' work appeared, therealso appeared an anonymous tract called Policies to Reduce ThisRealme Unto a Prosperous Wealthe nd Estate, n which the authorstated that foreign nd domestic rade would be increased "if everylaborer and artificer, nd all other of] he common people were wellset at work."8 The mercantilist bjective of full employment, tsconnection with a flourishing rade, and the importance f trade to

the nation, were summarized y Edward Misselden n 1622:Andwhat has more elation o matters f state, han Commerce f merchants?For when trade flourishes, he King's revenue s augmented, ands and rentsimproved, avigation s increased, he poor employed. But if trade decay, allthese declinewith t.9

The importance f employment as expressed y William Petty(1662) in his familiar proposition hat as the nation's populationincreased ts wealth ncreased n greater proportion on the assump-

tion, t is clear, that employment ncreased s much or more han thepopulation). He believed the state should take the greatest are toutilize the abor force nd to keep its skills n order. If necessary heidle workers hould beemployed o build a uselesspyramid pon Salisbury lain, bring he stones tStonehenge oTowerhill, r the ike, or t worst hiswouldkeep heirmindes o adiscipline nd obedience, nd their odies o a patience f more rofitable abourswhen need shall require t.1

Petty's expedient was ridiculed sixty-six years later by theauthor of the anonymous Considerations n theEast India Trade, butPetty's principle was accepted. The later author wrote:A peoplewouldbe thought xtravagant nd onlyfit or edlam whichwith greatstir nd bustle hould mploy tself oremove tones rom laceto place.

Yet as a method of increasing mployment, he later author held,such a shift wasno more illy han the restricting f mports. If trade

were free, every individual man in England might be employed o7. John Hales,A Discourse f theCommonWeal of This Realm of ngland,

ed. Elizabeth Lamond Cambridge, 893),pp. 59, 98.8. Tudor conomic ocuments, d. R. H. Tawney nd EileenPower, II, 323.9. Edward Misselden, ree Trade, or the Meanesto Make Trade Florish

(London,1622),p. 4.1. Sir WilliamPetty, EconomicWritings, d. Charles Henry Hull (Cam-

bridge, 899), , 31,35.


7/38


some profit f the kingdom."2 It is clear that the later author be-lieved a wise economic olicy ought o maximize he national output,

which of coursewas exactly what Petty believed. Where their viewsdiffered was on the means of achieving the objective. The laterauthor must have assumed that labor was mobile, or possibly thatfree rade would make abor mobile, nd he then could argue that thegreatest utput requires he specialization which free rade provides.Petty, on the other hand, made no such assumptions, nd thereforethe maximizing f output eemedto him to require he full utilizationof labor by whatever means were appropriate o the circumstances

of the moment.William Temple (1671) maintained that the riches of a nationwere n its peopleand that they would add to the country's wealth nproportion o necessity's driving hem to industry nd enterprise.'Nicholas Barbon (1690) believed that employment was more mpor-tant than efficiency n consumption nd in the use of resources.4Josiah Child (1690) believed that the obstacles to greater nationalwealth were those which restricted reeexchange and consequentlyreduced employment, nd the reforms e submitted gave attentionto increasing mployment.5 ir Dudley North 1691), who has beencalled one of the first ree raders, wrote: "Commerce and trade, ashath been said, first pring rom he labour of man, but as the stockincreases, t dilates more nd more." As trade expands, or "dilates,"it "never thrives better than when riches are tossed from hand tohand."6 Charles Davenant (1695) reasoned that security f employ-ment increased the industry f the worker, ncouraged him to bethrifty, nd thereby was favorable o economic growth.7 John Law(1720) argued that one of the main benefits f an increase n themoney supply would be an increase n employment.8 Daniel Defoein his famous defense f tradesmen 1732)held that the main benefitof trade was in the numbers t employed.9 John Cary (1745)believed

2. A SelectCollectionf Early EnglishTracts n Commerce London,1856),pp. 581, 582.

3. Sir William emple, Works Edinburgh, 754), I, 59-60.4. Nicholas Barbon, A Discourse f Trade ([London: 1690]A Reprint f

Economic racts, d. Jacob Hollander, altimore, 905), p. 32.5. Josiah hild,ANewDiscourse f Trade 5th d.; Glasgow, 751), p.54-56.6. Sir Dudley North, iscoursesUponTrade [London, 691]A Reprint f

Economic racts, d. Jacob Hollander, altimore, 907), pp. 25, 27.7. Charles avenant, AnEssay UponWays nd Means of upplying heWar

(London,1695),p. 143.8. John Law, Money nd Trade Considered, ith Proposal or Supplying

theNationwithMoney London, 720),p. 11.9. Daniel Defoe, The Complete nglish Tradesman, tc. London,1732), I,

109, 111.


8/38


that the wealth of the nation was in the "labour of its people."'Josiah ucker 1750)wrote hat he ountry asthemore rosperous,

"the more ersons here re employed n every ranch fbusiness."2BishopBerkeley 1751), nothermercantilist howasquitenear heclassical conomists, rgued hat he atisfaction fwants s the ulti-mate objective f economic rganization nd that the complete ndefficient mployment f resources s necessary hereto.3 MalachyPostlethwayt1759)reasoned hat he atisfaction f ndividual antsrequired ull mployment nd competition.4

The preceding ummarys meant o show he mportance f fullemploymentnmercantilist olicy. Thewriters ndicated ow mpor-tant they elt t to be by their requent ssertion hat hewealth fthe nation epended n ts "labor";by the ignificancehey ttachedto the size of the population; y the common tatement hat theadvantage f trade was in the numbers t employed; y the graveconcern xpressed ver the extent f unemployment,dleness, ndpoverty, n the numerous emedies y which hese roblems ere obeeliminated ndtheproductivity f abor wasto be ncreased.Mostof the measures f policy an be explainedmore imply nd com-pletely y assuming hat full employment as the mercantilists'objective hanby supposing hat ome other urpose irected heirideas.

It is, however, ossible o assume hat the amount f "trade"wasthe keystone f policy, f oneusesthe word, s the mercantilistsusuallydid, to include ll economic ctivity. Their designs or abrisk rade" hen ecomemethods f ssuring hemaximum mountof productive ffort hich s what full mployments alsomeant oprovide. But the word, trade," has a narrower eaningn modernusage,denoting neaspectof the distributive rocess, nd thereforeits usecanmislead ne nto hinking hemercantilistsgnoredmanu-facturing, griculture, hipping, nd other ndustries, hich n factthey did not. Moreover,many of the mercantilists' deas can berelatedmore irectly othe mount f mploymenthan o the mountof trade as their deas about psychological otivation). Ofcourse,the words full employment" lso can be misleading, ut less so,

I believe, han ny otherswhich an describe he objective f mer-cantilist olicy.1. John Cary, A Discourse n Trade London,1745),p. 82.2. Josiah ucker, A Brief ssay on .. Trade 2d ed.; London, 750), xii.3. The Right Rev. GeorgeBerkeley, he Querist Glasgow, 751), Queries

46, 47, 168.4. MalachyPostlethwayt, reat ritain's ommercial nterest xplained nd

Improved2d ed.; London, 1759), I, 367, 370-71, 377.


9/38


The objectivewas not, s often upposed, he accumulation fbullion, favorable alance of trade, he advancement f private

interests, hesubordination f the working lass, ow nterest ates,the elevation f trade t the expense f other ndustries. ome ofthese onsiderations eremeans o the nd offull mployment; omewerenot entertained y the majority f writers t all. A few f themercantilists ayhave confusedmoneywith wealth nd so madebullionismn end. None of he onsiderations ccupied s importanta place nthedoctrine s full mployment id, ndnone erves o wellto unify heparticular easures f control hich were roposed.

Oncefull mployments taken s the objective f mercantilistpolicy, hat policy's ifference rom iberal olicy narrows onsider-ably. Although hedifferencesnot eliminated,t s much ess thanif one supposes hat he objective f mercantilism as, ay, a favor-ablebalanceof trade, which he iberals ever ouldhave acceptedas an end.

As many of the commentaries ssume favorable alance oftrade obethe bjective fmercantilist olicy, t perhaps snecessaryto explainwhy hat view s not accepted n this ssay. If this hadbeen hemercantilists' bjective, t s unlikely hat heywouldhavegivenmuch ttention o the money upply, mployment, pending,domestic rade, nd to other matters whichhave only n indirectconnection,f ny t all,with favorable rade alance. Moreover,theywould aveemphasized restriction f mports t least s muchas an increase n exports, ince y eithermethod favorable alancecouldhave been realized. Onecan try, f course, o explain waytheir octrine y assuming heywere gnorant nd llogical.But thisdoes hem ess han ustice. It also eaves nepuzzled verwhy atergenerations ave studied what they said so closely, f they weremerely nenlightened nd unreasonablecribblers.

It is my pinion hat heir esire omaintain favorable alanceof trade was based on the assumption hat Englandwouldbe ableto increase mployment y exporting ore han t imported anassumption hich s plausiblen the hort un. In the ong un, hepolicywouldhave supported omestic mploymentf Englandhad

invested ts net receipts broad; nd it is of nterest hat omemer-cantilists, ikeThomasMun 1630),recommendedhis ractice.Thefavorable alance f rade octrine ssometimesxplained s a deviceto secure ullion, hich, t ssaid,wasthought o ncrease henationalwealth. Since hemercantilists' onetary heory sexplained elow,it needonly e saidhere hat his wasnot the belief fmost f hem.


10/38

LIBERAL ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH MERCANTILISM 473

IIIn order o achieve ull mployment, hemercantilists roposed

a variety f measures. Most of the measures ave often eencalledwonderful xamples f what an economy hould not undertake.However, heybecome ensible f related o the objective f policy.The measures anbe grouped nto hose which ffected: 1) the otalspending f the economy, 2) prices,wages, nd the distribution fincome,3) interest ates, nd 4) the upply f abor. The measuresin the first hree roupsweremeant o increase mployment ainlyby increasing hedemand or abor while hose n the fourth roupweremeant o increase he abor upply.

(1) Most of the mercantilists elievedthe economy wouldprosper f there was the maximum mount f spending y indi-viduals, usiness nterprise, nd foreigners, o which Petty ddedthe government. lthoughmost mercantilists hought f spendingonexports s the principal upport f mployment,omenoted hatspending n wholly omesticmarkets was also important. ettynoted hat there were ircumstances hich ustified ublic xtrava-gance, ecause t put money nto hehands f he radesman; edid,however, hink t more rudent or he state, whenever ossible, ouse ts fiscal owers o direct pending ocapital oods orencourageinvestment)-. Barbon observed hat covetousness a high pro-pensity osave)reduced onsumption,ncome, overnment evenues,and employment. e submitted hat the most powerful timulantto trade, venthough ethought t wasteful n itself, asspendingon goodswhich uickly ecame bsolete.6Defoebelieved heecon-omy prospered hen consumers pent large proportion f theirincome, lthough e urged he tradesman imself o be frugal norder hat rade nd employment ould e secure.' North was essconcerned ith he olvency f the tradesman hanwith he tate ofall trade, which, e said, will decline f "the consumption ails, swhenmen y reason fpoverty, onot pend o much ntheir ousesas formerly heydid." Manyof the mercantilists ere larmed ythe hoarding f gold nd silver, nd showed heir larm y frequentaspersions n individuals ho fancied plate" and on those who

were covetous. North deferred o the common iew of hoardingto the extent f defending miser y saying hat even he spendsoccasionallynd when he does "those he sets on work benefit ytheir eing mployed."8

5. Petty, p. cit., , 33, II, 269.6. Barbon, p. cit.,p. 32.7. Defoe,op.cit., I, 118.8. North, p. cit., p. 25,27-28.


11/38


However, t was foreign rademore han domestic rade whichinterested he mercantilists, ecausethey believed t contributed

more to employment, o the nation's wealth, nd to its power.The writers fter 600stressed he nflationary ffect f an excessof exports ver mports nd the consequentncrease n employmentproduced y inflation. hey reasoned hat a favorable alance oftrade brought old and silver o England, hat the greatermoneysupply ausedspending o increase, nd that the greater pendingwould ncrease mployment. ome viewed exportsmore directlyand naively, hinking hat greater xports meant greater mploy-ment. Few of the mercantilists istinguished arefully etweenthe short- nd long-run ffects f a favorable radebalance, de-ficiency, owever, hichwouldbe morenoteworthy f t werenotthat many of their ritics lso failed o make the distinction are-fully.

In order o secure favorable alance, he mercantilists ro-posed their familiar ommercial olicy:duties on imports, ithrebates n raw materials sed in making xports; he prohibitionof certain mported oods; the removal f export uties; ubsidiesand other ssistance o the export ndustries; onopoly rants ocertain oint tock ompaniesngaged n foreign rade; prohibitionof the export f coin and bullion; nd an aggressive oreign olicyby whichEnglandwouldhelp ts exporters apture markets romtheir ompetitors.

The mercantilists ho wrote before 600believed favorablebalancewould nableEngland o accumulate ullion or war pur-poses. For this eason Halesregarded heexport ndustries s mostvaluable o the nation, aying: I wouldhave them mostpreferredand cherished hat bring n most commodity nd treasure o thecountry," ommoditynd treasure eing ynonyms ere.9

Not every neof he measures fpolicy oted bove s proposedin all of the mercantilist ritings. n some hey ven appear o becontradicted, specially hecentral deathat n increase n spendingcauses an increase n employment. or example, emple was op-posed to indiscriminate pending n consumption. ther writers

deplored he taste for uxuries nd urged heiruse be restricted.However, hiskind of opposition ospending ested n one or moreof three rguments, nd each reveals hat the mercantilists id, nfact, elate pending oemployment nd wished pending egulatedin order hat t would ncrease mployment. emple, ike his con-

9. Hales, op. cit., . 127.


12/38


temporary, etty, elieved hat England equiredmore apital, ndhe urged ess consumption ut of income n order hat there be

greater pending n capitalgoods which n turn would ncrease heproductivity f labor). The mercantilists ho opposed spendingon luxuries id so partly ecause uxuries ere mported nd partlybecause heir seby theworking lassreducedtswillingnesso work.

(2) The mercantilists' deas about wages and prices were re-lated to employment n four ways. One view was that wages de-termined xport rices nd the amount f exports, nd hence de-termined pending nd employment. nother as that he relation-ship betweenmoneywages and prices, r real wages,determinedthe distribution f incomewhich n turn ffected he amount fspending nd employment. third was that sellingprices de-termined he amount f spending nd employment. fourth asthat real wagesdetermined hequantity f abor upplied.

Those mercantilists ho regarded he net export balance asthe chief eterminant f employment suallyfavored policyoflowwages, easoning hat ow wagesmeant owcosts nd prices ndincreased nit sales. Some writers, owever, avored he oppositepolicy. Cary believed hat high abor osts did not reduce xports.Arguing rom he abortheory f value,he stated hat the greaterthe amount f abor used n the manufacture f exports hegreatertheir ricewould e and the greater hereturn n bullion rom heirsale, a viewpoint hich ssumed emand onditions ifferent romthose assumedby the mercantilists ho favored ow wages.' Itwas Mun who madeclear the mportance f demand onditionsnthe exportmarket. He said that England hould ake care to keep

its osts own nthemanufacture f hose xports orwhich oreignershad no great eed i.e.,those orwhich he demandwaselastic), ndthat Englandneed be less concerned bout high ostsfor hose x-ports which oreignersound ecessaryfor which he demandwasinelastic).2

Cary also favored ighwagesbecausehe believed hey up-ported employment n wholly domestic ndustries. He thoughtwage reductions ouldreduce pending n food and in turn the

incomef andlords.3 f all of the mercantilists hobelieved he

distribution f ncome etermined pending nd employment,t wasDefoewhowas most xplicit:

1. Cary, op. cit., p. 12.2. ThomasMun, England'sTreasure yForraign rade NewYork, 1928),

p. 8.3. Cary, op. cit., p. 96-102.


13/38


The consumption f provisions ncreases he rent nd value of the lands,and this raises hegentlemen's states, nd that again ncreases he employmentof people, nd consequently henumbers f them....

As the peopleget greater ages, o they, mean he ame poorer art of thepeople, lothebetter, nd furnish etter, nd this ncreases he consumption fthe very manufactures heymake; then hat consumptionncreases he quantitymade, and this creates what we call the inland trade, by which nnumerablefamilies re employed, nd the ncrease f the peoplemaintained; nd by whichincrease of trade and people the present growing rosperity f this nation sproduced.4

Berkeley xpressed similar dea n oneofhis rhetorical ueries:

Whether s feed qually cattered roduceth goodlyharvest, ven soan equal distribution f wealthdoth not cause a nation o flourish.5

Davenant nd Postlethwayt lso favored more qual distribu-tion f ncome r ofwealth.6

A policy f high real wages mplies policy f ow prices orany givenmoneywagestructure. herefore ne should hink hatthesemercantilists erenot verse oprice eductions.Many,how-ever,were. Defoe wasopposed oprice utting ecausehe believed

it damaged he nterests f he radesman hoby hiscentral ositionin the conomy ad greatest nfluence n the mount f mployment.Defoe, nfact, eems ohavewanted igh rices ndhighwages, ndthe difficulty f having oth does not seemto have troubled im.He proposed hat wagesbe kept highby the tradesman's voidingall practiceswhichwouldreduce he amount f labor required nenterprise. There s a maxim," e said, "that the morehands t[trade] oes hrough,hegreater ublic dvantage t s to the ountry."

In order o maintain ighprices,he proposed hat production erestricted f necessary:There s another undamentaln the prosperity f nation, whichwillnever

fail to be true, viz., that no land is fully mproved ntil t is made to yield tsutmost ncrease:But if our ands should be made to yield heir tmost ncrease,and your peoplecannot onsume he ncrease, r foreign rade take it offyourhands, tis then no increase o us, and must not be produced; o that the andsmust e laid down, hat s to say, certain roportion f them, nd eft o bear nocorn, r feed no cattle, ecauseyour produce s too great oryour onsumption.7

This dea was revived bout hirty ears ater y Postlethwayt, ndfrom t he developed henotion f maintaining hespending oweroffarmers yfixing heprices hey eceivedna particular roportion

4. Defoe,op.cit., , 318-19.5. Berkeley, p. cit., Q. 214.6. Davenant, op.cit.,p. 103. Postlethwayt, p. cit., I, 389.7. Defoe,op.cit., I, 109,115-16.


14/38

LIBERALELEMENTSIN ENGLISHMERCANTILISM 477

to nonagricultural rices, notion which contained he rudiments fparity pricing.8 About a century prior to Defoe, Gerard Malynes

(1656) wrote that the national interest equired high prices.9 Stillearlier, Hales wrote that spending hould be directed o high-priceddomestically roduced goods in preference o lower-priced mports,although ebelieved he price evelwas too high nd shouldbe reducedby lowering he price of silver.'

The mercantilist ttachment o high prices came of the infla-tionary persuasion common to most of them after 1600. (Before1600,there were several proposals to increase the silver content of

the coin,which, t was believed,would avebeen deflationary.) Theyseem to have observed that unemployment was accompanied bydeclining prices and severe price competition. They probably rea-soned that n order o keep the economyprosperous rices had to bekept high, y means of maximum pending upported y an adequatemoney supply. Misselden wrote:

And t s muchbetter or he kingdom, o have things earwith lenty f money,wherebymen may ive n their everal allings: han to have things heap with

want of money, whichnow makes veryman complain.2

It is important o note that it was by monetary means that mostmercantilists elievedprices houldbe raised and supported. Almostall of them were opposedto raising rices by a monopolistic rganiza-tion of the market. Although his device would have raised pricesit also wouldhave reduced mployment, r at least would have madefull mployment more difficult o achieve. As the mercantilists erestrongly gainst monopoly, hey were much n favor of competition.

How they conceived of competition s explained below, but it is inorder here to note what they thought was the effect f competitionon prices, wages, and employment.

Childbelievedthat competition n domestic nd foreignmarkets,including ree ntry nto all occupations,would ncrease mploymentand the national wealthY Tucker reasoned that a free price systemwithin wholly domestic markets would produce greater mploymentthan any other ystem.4 Similar deas were expressedby the author

of the anonymous Policies, etc., by Hales, Malynes, Petty, Barbon,8. Postlethwayt, p. cit., I, 405.9. Gerard Malynes,Consuetudo, el,Lex Mercatoria: r the Ancient aw

Merchant London,1656),p. 65.1. Hales,op. cit.,p. 67.2. Misselden, p. cit., . 107.3. Child, p. cit., p. 54-56,127.4. Tucker, p. cit., . 83.


15/38


North, Davenant, Berkeley, and Postlethwayt.5 In view of thecommon belief that the mercantilist writers upported the mercan-

tilist practice of price fixing, t is interesting o note the observationsof the author of Policies,etc., bout the fixing f foodprices n Londonin the first alf of the sixteenth entury. It was his view that pricefixing educed the supply of farm products brought o London andthereby made worse the condition t was meant to alleviate. Hewondered how anyone could believe "this present dearth of victualmay be redressed by setting prices upon victual," and continued:"but surely t is not the setting f owprices hat willanything mendthe matter. But it must be the taking away of the occasion of highprices," which was, he said, the small supply of goods. The authorobserved lso the nconvenience xperienced y buyers. When pricesare set below their market value, "what throng nd strife s therethen ike to be who shall first atch upon that which cometh." Heconcluded hat it is much better to suffer ll kind of persons uietlyto sell all kind of victual in the market t what price he can."6

Another rgument dvanced for a free market was its salutaryeffect n the laboring classes. Postlethwayt elieved that competi-tion among workers forced them to be efficient, esponsible, ndenterprising, nd that it lowered wages.7 The mercantilists oldingthis view associated low wages with competition nd high wageswith restrictions n the labor supply, such as apprenticeship ndjourneymen ules. They argued for market determination f wagesand not, as sometimes sserted, or he subordination f the workingclass. There were mercantilists ho did believe the workers houldbe disciplined n order hat the amount of abor offered or ale would

be increased. Petty and one of his eighteenth entury admirers,Thomas Man (1739), argued that as real wages exceeded a certainamount the quantity of abor supplied decreased nd therefore f themaximum mount of effort as to be obtained real wages should notexceed this amount.8

(3) In addition o achieving ull mployment y measures elatedto spending nd to wagesand prices, omeof the mercantilists ishedto use the rate of nterest or hispurpose. There wasmore greement

5. Hales, op. cit., p. 60. Gerard Malynes,The Maintenance f Free Trade(London, 622),p. 79. Petty, p. cit., , 9, II, 243. Barbon, p. cit., . 16. North,op. cit., . 12. Davenant, op.cit., p. 56-60. Berkeley, p. cit., Q. 47. MalachyPostlethwayt, he Universal ictionary f Tradeand CommerceLondon,1774),cap. "Forestalling," Engrossing," Regrating."

6. Tawney nd Power, p. cit., II, 340, 342.7. Postlethwayt, reat ritain's Commercialnterest, tc., I, 425.8. Petty, op. cit., I, 274-75. Thomas Man, The Benefit f Procreation

(London,1739),pp. 20-21.


16/38


about the rate of interest than about the correct wage and pricepolicy but less than about the importance of adequate spending.

Those who wished to use the interest ate believed a low rate wouldenable the merchant o increase his inventories, hat it would lowerthe price of exports, nd that both these effects would in turn causean increase n employment. Those who favored low rate includedMisselden, Malynes, Temple, Barbon, Child, Law, and the authorof Britannia Languens 1680).9

Except for Barbon who proposed a maximum rate of three percent to be fixed by law, these mercantilists avored ndirect means

of reducing he rate. Most believed that the development f financialinstitutions, ikebanking nd the money market, would exert down-ward influence n the rate. One of the most interesting deas heldthat the rate varied inversely with the money supply and wasexpressed y Misselden, Malynes, and Law. According o Misselden"The remedy for usury may be plenty of money," and Malyneswrote of "the abundance of money which maketh the price of usuryto fall, more han any aw or proclamation an ever do."' Law wrote:

. . . indeed, f owness f nterest were the consequence f a greater uantity fmoney, hestock pplied to trade wouldbe greater, nd merchants ouldtradecheaper, rom he easiness f borrowing, nd the ower nterest f money,withoutany inconveniences attending t.2

(The "inconveniences" re those of usury aws.)This view of the interest ate was not wholly hared by Petty

and North. Petty conceded that an increase n the money supplywould lower the rate on loans, but he was averse to this sort of

manipulation, robably because he believed that as many economicmatters s possible should be regulated by "the laws of nature," bywhich he seems to have meant a free market. He held that theinterest n a sum of money at loan must be equal to the net rentwhich the same sum would yield if used to purchase land, exceptwhere the risk n the two transactions differed.3 his implies thatthe money rate of interest must conform o the real rate and canfall only as the productivity f capital declines. This was a long-term view which does not preclude the possibility of short-termdifferences etween the two rates. There was, therefore, o neces-

9. Misselden, p. cit., p. 29-30. Malynes,TheMaintenance f FreeTradesp. 39. Temple, p. cit., , 129. Barbon, p. cit., . 41. Child, p. cit., . ix. Law,op. cit., p. 17. Early EnglishTracts, . 318.

1. Misselden, p. cit., p. 117. Malynes, The Maintenance f Free Trade,pp. 39-40.

2. Law, op. cit., p. 17.3. Petty, p. cit., , 48, II, 445.


17/38

480 QUARTERLY JOURNALOF ECONOMICS

sary contradiction between Petty's theory and the conventionalone (although the mercantilists hemselves might very well have

insisted here was). North, too, believed the long-run eterminantof the interest ate was the productivity f capital and that the ratecould fall only as the "stock in trade" (capital) increased. A lowrate was therefore he consequenceof an increase n the quantity ofcapital and not the cause of the increase. North was strongly p-posed to regulating he rate by altering he money upply, believingthat the money upply adjusted itself o the volume of trade ratherthan determined t. He also was opposed to usury aws, which hebelieved would decrease the quantity of loans supplied.4 One canobserve that the proponents f a low rate based their argument nthe assumption hat a decrease n the rate would ncrease he quantityof loans demanded while North argued from the assumption thata decrease n the rate would decrease the quantity of oans supplied.Neither seemed to want to consider he other's premises, nd so itis not surprising hat the debate was inconclusive.

In addition to believing hat it determined he rate of interest,there were two other reasons why the mercantilists ttended soclosely to the money upply. One was the belief hat for any givenamount of trade there was an appropriate upply of money nd thatas the supply ncreased here would be an increase n trade and em-ployment. In this conception, change in the money supply wasthought ooperate directly n spending ather han ndirectly hroughchanging he interest ate. It happens that Law used both ideas tosupport his scheme for increasing the money supply. About thedirect effect f an increase he wrote:

Domestic radedepends n the money:A greater uantity mploys morepeoplethan a lesser uantity. A limited um can only et a number f peopleto workproportioned o it, and it is with ittle uccess aws are made, for mploying hepoor nd idle n countries here money s scarce; good aws may bring he moneyto the full irculation t is capable of, nd force t to those mployments hat remost profitable o the country: ut no laws can make t go further, orcan morepeoplebeset to work,withoutmoremoney o circulate o as to pay the wages fgreater umber.5

The argument ssumes a downward rigidity f prices such that adecrease n the money supply, by causing ess spending, produces adecrease n employment nd output.

The other reason for the mercantilists' ttention o money wasthe belief hat an accumulation f bullion could be desirable n itself.

4. North, p. cit., pp. 17-19.5. Law, op. cit., p. i1.


18/38


Those who held this belief ncludedHales, Temple, Cary, and Tucker,the last of whom said:

. . . the whole science of gainful ommerce onsists, ltimately n procuringbalanceof goldand silver o ourselves rom ther nations.'

This has been taken to mean, by Smith and John Stuart Mill forexample, that the mercantilists elieved money was wealth andthat they made no distinction between things exchanged and themedium by which they were exchanged. Some of the mercantilistsmay have believed this, but it is very doubtful that many did.Hales observed that accumulation was desirable because treasurewas the "sinews of war."7 Petty believed that the nation shouldaccumulate gold and silver,becausethose hings re not only not perishable, ut are esteemed orwealth tall times nd everywhere.8The statements f Hales and Petty do not imply hat a nation shouldaccumulate specie because it is wealth but because it is a store ofwealth. Even Mun, who has come down to us as one of the first oexpose the fallacy of bullionism, onceded there were circumstancesin which a prince would be wise to lay by a store of treasure. It isdebatable whether he accumulation of bullion would have givenEngland a more certain command over the goods of other nationsthan would its commodity exports. However, the mercantilistsassumed that it would, and in this assumption, however unrealisticor otherwise, here was no logical confusion f money with wealth.Nor was there in the alternative conceptions which related themoney supply to the rate of interest nd to spending. Moreover,when it is realized that some of the mercantilists were opposed toaccumulation, or to restrictions n the export of bullion and coin,there s no warrant t all for tating hat the characteristic allacyofmercantilism as the confusion f money with wealth. North andBerkeley were opposed to accumulation; Child opposed restrictionof the export of coin because he thought t reduced employment, ndPetty because it was "against the laws of nature, nd also impracti-cable."9

(4) There was a final group of measures by which the mercan-tilists meant to increase employment. It consisted of means of in-creasing he quantity of abor supplied the relationship f real wages

6. Temple, p. cit., I, 131-32. Cary, p. cit., p. 2. Tucker, p. cit., p. iii n.7. Hales,op. cit., pp. 87, 127.8. Petty, p. cit., I, 269.9. Mun, p. cit., p. 66. North, p. cit., pp. 25-26. Berkeley, p. cit., passim.

Child, p. cit., p. 55. Petty, p. cit., II, 445.


19/38

482 QUARTERLY JOURNALOF ECONOMICS

to whichwasexplained bove),of ncreasing he abor upply, ndof increasing he productivity f labor. That the mercantilists

looked t employment rom he supply s wellas demand ide ofthe market ndicates heir olicy ought o increase hequantity fresourcesnd was not make-shift or reating obs.

Theirmethods f ncreasinghe abor orce re harsh y today'sstandards nd often re nterpreted s revealing n animosity owardthe ower lasses. Those who nterpret he mercantilists hiswayusually mply hat the classical conomists ad a more nlightenedviewof the working lass.' Certainly ore ympathy asexpressedby the classicists; herewas esscarping, esspreaching f the early-to-bed, arly-to-rise ariety, nd there was more olerance f dis-tinctively uman behavior. But when all this s said, there tillremains he fact hat the classical conomists id not make ny m-portant roposals o redistribute ncome r otherwise o amelioratethe condition f the ower lasses xcept ourge hat the best hopefor hem, s for ll other lasses,wasthe steadygrowth f nationaloutput, goal which he mercantilistsust as persistently oughtalthough y somewhat ifferent eans.Actually,most of the mercantilist aborpolicy ame from heassumption hat self-interest overns ndividual onduct, n as-sumption s fully ntertained oday s it wastwo nd three undredyears go. The principle hich irected he mercantilists o believethat the unemployed hould eceive nly subsistence llowance sno different rom hat which eads modern conomists o believeunemployment ompensationhouldbe set much belowprevailingwages n order hat he dle hall not come o prefer eisure o work.The point was made very learby J. S. Mill whoargued hat thebestwayto treat hepoor s to make hemwish heywere ich.

The mercantilist aborpolicy onsisted f measures o increasethe population; oincrease he ize of the abor forcewithin givenpopulation,nnumbers fworkers nd nthe mount fwork uppliedby each aborer; nd to increase he productivity f the aborforce.In order o increase he population ome writers roposed hatsubsidies e given o largefamilies; nd occasionallyhey ttachedthe ngeniouscheme f financing he ubsidies y a tax on bachelors(whichmakesonewonderwhat wouldhavehappened ad the sub-sidies een uccessful).Othermethods ere o encourage he mmi-gration f killed orkers ndtradesmen hich,t wasbelieved, ouldbe easier f there weregreater eligious olerance. The percentage

1. See Edgar J. Furniss, hePosition f he aborer n a System fNational-im (Boston, 920).


20/38


of the labor force to the total population was to be increased bybringing hildren nto employment. Petty estimated hat f all those

between six and sixteen were employed the national income ofEngland would be increased by five million pounds (about the year1662).2 Almost all mercantilists onsidered ways of bringing morepersons nto the labor force. They wished to reduce the enlistmentsin the army and navy and to direct men into gainful mployment,to turn riminals o legitimate ctivity, nd, above all, to rehabilitatethe poor and indigent whom circumstances r choice had deprivedof the will to work.

Petty held that enlistmentsould be reduced by raising wages

in civilian employments.3 The unemployed were to be rehabilitatedby work houses nto which heywere to be forced n pain of receivingno public assistance whatever and in which they would learn thevirtue of work. More severe treatment was thought proper forcriminals who, t was believed, had to be shown that crime was notto their nterest. Temple thought he forms f punishment houldbe made more asting, nd he proposed "to change the usual punish-ment by short and easy deaths, into some others of painful anduneasy lives," a change which involved branding the cheeks ofcriminals, litting heir noses, and condemning hem to slavery inthe colonies.4 Berkeleybelieved that all who would not work houldbe impressed nto labor gangs and used for public projects.' How-ever, not all mercantilists ere as ruthless. Child pleaded for under-standing nd patience. He proposed a reconstruction f the systemofproviding elief othe poor n order o help them nd to demonstrateto others hat the lower classes were an asset and not a liability othe nation.'In order o increase the amount of work offered, t was proposedthat the state remove he many distractions which kept the workersfrom being industrious. Drinking was the first o be attended to.According o Defoe:'

In English le their ear enjoyment ies,For which hey'll tarve hemselves nd families.An Englishman illfairly rink s much

As will maintain wo families f Dutch.2. Petty, p. cit., , 308.3. Petty, p. cit., , 23.4. Temple, p. cit., I, 380-81.5. Berkeley, p. cit., Q. 381.6. Child, p. cit., hap. 2.7. Daniel Defoe, True Born Englishman n Essays and Studiesby Members

of the nglish Association, ollected y C. H. Herford Oxford, 913), V.


21/38


Tucker would have done away with cockpits, kittle-alleys, tagesfor udgel playing, making book on horse races, the selling of iquor,

cakes, fruit, or any like temptations o draw people together" ndaway from their obs.8 Other mercantilists sked for sumptuarycontrol, ecause they thought he wearing f ribbons nd ruffles ndthe drinking f tea made workers rideful nd lazy. It is interestingthat such proposals hardly ver expressed he fear of nsubordinationturning nto sedition. It was sloth which alarmed the mercantilists.

For the purpose of ncreasing abor productivity, t was proposedthe workers be shown that industry, kill, and enterprise were totheir dvantage. Rewards were to be given for excellenceof work,some in money, some in the form of distinction. Industrious ndskilled mmigrants were to be attracted to England in order to setan example to native workers. Children were to be trained to thehabit of work from n early age, and older persons were to be shownin a variety of ways the rewards from ndustry. In his program orimproving he poor, Tucker asked that courts be formed n eachdistrict o supervise he working lass, each court to be presided overby "Guardians of the Morals of the Manufacturing Poor." Byprecept, nducement, nd punishment, he poor wouldbe transformedinto a national asset. One of the rewards was to be "a good book"stamped n gold on one side with "The Hand of the Diligent MakethRich" and on the other, "To the Praise of Them that Do Well."9

The labor policy of the mercantilists as a logical derivation ftheir economic psychology. Almost all believed there were threefactors which directed ndividuals o economic ctivity: the stimulusgiven by physical environment, he desire of men to emulate their

betters (a desire partly created by social environment), nd theeagerness for pecuniary rewards. It was believed that men werethe more ndustrious, he more difficult ere the conditions n whichthey ived: the climate, oil fertility, he national wealth n relationto the population. The less favorablewas their nvironment, hemorelikely hey were to become rich. Temple wrote:I conceive he true nd original rounds f rade o be, a great multitude f peoplecrowded nto mallcompass f and, whereby ll things ecessary o life become

dear, nd all men,whohavepossessions,re nduced o parsimony; ut those,whohave none, re forced o industry nd labour, or else to want. Bodies that arevigorous all o labour; uchas are not, upply hat defect y some ort of nven-tions or ingenuity. These customs rise first romnecessity, ut increase byimitation, nd grow n time obe habitual n a country.'

8. Tucker, p. cit., pp. 53 ff.9. Tucker, p. cit., p. 57.1. Temple, p. cit., , 119.


22/38


Postlethwayt ummarized he dea by saying, The greatest ndustryhas ever been the effect f the greatest necessity."'

The second factor which made men industrious was their desireto emulate those above them n social position and income. Pettywrote that men always seek to excel, and when placed together,as in large cities, their emulative instinct becomes all the keener,evoking their ndustry, ncreasing pending, nd providing oppor-tunity or till greater ndustry.3 Other writers, ike Defoe, doubtedthe beneficence f emulation, elieving t often made men mprudent,but they dmitted he motive was a strong ne.4

The third factor was the desire for monetary returns. It wasthought o be the principal cause of industry, nd that the greaterwere the money returns rom particular mployment he greaterusually would be the quantity of resources upplied to that employ-ment. The idea was expressed uite early and repeated down to theend of the mercantilist eriod when it was carried forward y theclassical economists n their doctrine of self-interest. Hales wrotethat "profit r advancement nourishes very faculty; which sayingis so true, that it is allowed by the common udgment of all men."5The idea was expressed by other mercantilists, mong them Petty,North, Davenant, and Defoe, the last of whom said, somewhatprodigally:

Gain is the tradesman's ife, tis the essence of his being, s a qualifiedtradesman. Convenience, nd supply f necessary hings or ife,were the firstcauses ndeed f trade; but the reason nd end of the tradesman s to get money:'Tis the polestar nd guide, he aim and design f all his notions; tis the centerand point o which ll his actions end; tis the oul of business, he pur of ndus-

try,hewheel

hat urns within ll wheelsf hiswholebusiness, nd gives motion

to the rest.6

What Defoe said of the tradesman and Lamb described moreeconomically s "the quick pulse of gain") was believed true of allin the economy nd true n a special way of the worker. An increasein real wages would be accompanied by an increase n the quantityof labor supplied until real wages reached a certain amount, and ifthey went beyond this amount the quantity of abor supplied would

decrease. The mercantilists ho thought f the abor supply functionin this way believed that pecuniary elf-interest ad less of an effect2. Postlethwayt, reat ritain's Commercialnterest, tc., I, 367.3. Petty, p. cit., , 32.4. Defoe, The Completenglish Tradesman, , 56.5. Hales, op. cit.,p. 57.6. Petty, p. cit., , 48. North, p. cit., p. 13. Davenant, op. cit., p. 109.

Defoe,Complete nglish Tradesman, tc., I, 79-80.


23/38


on the worker han on others n the economy; or that before thepecuniary motive could operate effectively he worker had first o

become accustomed to high real wages. It had, therefore, o bereinforced y other factors. One was emulation. This trait couldbe exploited by placing before he working man the rewards whichothers had acquired by their ndustry, nd so developing his wants.Wants, however, had to be guided prudently, or they could turnmen toward the ale houses as well as the shops and factories. Mostcertain of all conditions eading them to industry was environment.If the poor could not be brought to gainful activity by monetaryrewards or enticed to it by the desire to excel, they could be forcedto it by necessity. Moreover, as Temple explained, the habitsthey formed while overcoming necessity would remain with them,and they would continue to be industrious when the original causehad disappeared.

IIIIn these observations n individual motivation, he mercantilist

writers nticipated the economic psychology n classical doctrine.In addition, hey nticipated wo other of ts important eatures: henature of the price mechanism nd the political presuppositions feconomicpolicy.

It was the classicalviewthat self-interest perating n a compet-itive market directed resources o their most efficient mploymentsand enabled individuals o spend their ncome n a way which wouldmaximize heir atisfaction s consumers. Whatever nterfered iththe operation f self-interest, s it directed he choices of ndividualsin their capacity as producers or consumers, usually reduced theefficiency f the economy or, what is the same thing, ts real income.The classicists did make exceptions to laissez faire, some of theminsistent, but laissez faire was certainly their rule of policy. Sogreat was their mphasis on the efficiency f resource use which themarket created that one must suppose they believed the marketwould provide for the full employment f resources s well as theirdirection to the best particular uses. Apart from Malthus and

Sismondi,none of the classicists dmitted conflict etween fficientemployment nd full employment.The mercantilists' onception f the price mechanismwas similar

to that of the classicists on these matters: the directive power ofself-interest that is, its economic as well as psychological spect);the determination f prices by supply and demand; the desirabilityof competition; nd the mutual advantage of exchange n domestic


24/38


markets. The mercantilists, owever, id not believe that universalefficiency ould be established by the price system; they did believe

that a limited operation of the system was desirable. They alsoheld a qualified notion of the harmony of self-interest. On theissue of full employment, here was the greatest difference etweenthe mercantilists nd the classical economists. It was the mer-cantilist view that free international rade would reduce employ-ment, hat inattention o the monetary ystem would have the sameresult, nd that a highly nequal distribution f ncomecould reducespending which n turn would reduce employment.

From the mercantilist onception of self-interest ollowed thebelief that under certain conditions he free allocation of resourceswould yield the greatest possible efficiency nd employment. It isnoteworthy hat the mechanics f the price system hould have beenexplained by one of the earliest writers, Hales, and it is especiallyinteresting hat he should have suggested hat the idea was a com-mon one in his age. His work s a dialogue between a doctor anda knight. At one point they consider he best means of eliminatingthe scarcity of corn, nd the doctor says its price should be free tofind ts market value just as the price of wool is free.

Knight: How would you have them the husbandmen] etter herished ouse the plough?

Dr: To let them have moreprofit rom t than they have, and liberty o sellit at all times, nd to all places, s freely s men do their ther hings. But thennodoubt heprice f orn would ise, pecially t the firstmore han t the ength;yet that pricewouldprovoke very man to set plough o the ground, o husbandwaste grounds, es to turn he ands whichbe enclosed rom asture o arableland; for veryman willgladder ollow hat wherein hey ee the moreprofit ndgains. And thereby must needsensueboth great plenty f corn, nd also muchtreasure houldbe brought nto this realmby occasion hereof; nd besides hatplenty f other ictuals ncreased mongst s.7

If these remarks were taken out of context, hey easily couldbe interpreted s an argument or the unrestricted peration of theprice system. That "every man will gladder follow that whereinthey see the more profit nd gains" is in agreement with Smith'sstatement that "every individual is constantly xerting himself ofind out the most advantageous employment or whatever capitalhe can command."8 Hales also anticipated the classical economistsin his statement hat "the workman never travails but as the masterprovokes him with good wages"; in his belief that the common

7. Hales,op. cit.,P. 59.8. Adam Smith, The Wealth f Nations, d. Edwin Cannan (New York,

1937),p. 421.


25/38

488 QUARTERLY JOURNAL OFECONOMICS

ownership f capital is less productive han individual ownership"that which s possessedof many n common s neglected f all"; and

in his conviction hat many forms f economic ontrol re ineffectivebefore the power of self-interest "for many heads will devisemany ways to get anything by."9 So long as only the positiveaspects of Hales' ideas are compared with those of Smith, the twowriters re in agreement. Both held the same view of the fact ofself-interest nd of ts power to direct abor and capital to their mostprofitable ses. The agreement s implied n the above passages andit is clear when the passages are placed in their context. About thenormative aspect, however, there was disagreement, nd this isexplained farther long.

Many of the mercantilists xplained how prices are determinedby supply and demand. Malynes, in a passage arguing gainst thefixing f pricesby the state, wrote:

Everyman noweth, hat n the buying nd selling f commodities here san estimation nd pricedemanded nd agreed pon between oth parties, ccord-ing o a certain quality n the value of hings, romoted ya true eason roundeduponthe commodious seof hings. So that quality snothing lsebut a mutual

voluntary stimation f things made in good order nd truth wherein qualityis not admitted r known.'

This statement actually goes beyond an expression of the fact ofsupply and demand. It suggests that utility s the basis of value("commodious use"), that utility s a subjective magnitude "esti-mation .. wherein quality is not admitted or known"), and thatthere s an advantage n exchange o both buyer nd seller "a mutualvoluntary stimation f things").

The words "true reason" have a special significance, oth forMalynes statement nd for the doctrine of other mercantilists. Inthe quotation above, true reason should be interpreted o mean accu-rate perception or understanding, which makes the statement anexpression f the dea that price or value is determined y individualevaluation and that this evaluation is the only true kind. It is theidea that individuals re the best judges of their welfare. Malynesagain remarked n true reason in his exposition of the Law of Mer-

chants, which, he said, was the only law that was universal andabsolute, the same everywhere nd at all times, and that it had itsorigin n Cicero's conception of true law as right reason agreeableto nature.' Malynes' remarks nticipate the conception of natural

9. Hales, op. cit., pp. 46, 49, 99.1. Malynes,Consuetudo,tc., . 67.2. Malynes,Consuetudo,tc., . 2. Cicero,Deofficiis trans. C. W. Keyes),

i, 4.


26/38


law held by the classical conomists. They dentified atural awwith eason nd made reason n individual rait,whichwas n con-

trast o conceptions f natural awthat madereason n immanentquality f social nstitutions r of a supernal ower. The doctrinesuggested y Malynes was the doctrine f natural ights r of ndi-vidualprerogatives hich re beyond he power f the state or ofsociety oabridge. t wasfirst nunciated ythe Stoics,wasappliedto social philosophy y Cicero, nd then was allowed o lapseformanyhundreds f yearsuntil t was returned o socialthought ythe philosophers f liberalism n the seventeenth entury.8 hat

whichMalynesncorporatedneconomic

olicy,f nly y ntimation,

was not natural aw, ui generis thishadbeendonewhen conomicproblems irst were recognized but that particular ersion fnatural aw which was the touchstone f political nd economicliberalism.

The practical esult f the natural ights octrine as a policyof ndividual conomic reedom. etty, or xample, rgued gainstthe many conomic ontrols mposed y the state, nd attributedEngland's ifficultieso the fact hat "too manymatters ave beenregulated y laws, which ature, ong custom, nd general onsentought only to have governed." Positive aws,he stated, houldconsist f "whatsoever s right eason nd the Law of Nature,"statement hich sbest nterpreted y placing heword, therefore"before the LawofNature," incePetty id not make substantivedistinction etween eason nd natural aw.4

As they believed rices ught obe determined y supply nddemand,most of the mercantilists ere pposed oprice ixing ndto many other orms f market ontrol. Barbon tated that "thevalue of all wares rises from heir se," that a "plenty" f waresmakes hem heap,while "scarcity"makes hem xpensive. Heconcluded, the market s the best udgeofvalue."5 North ssertedthe "universal maxim" f price s that "plenty f nything akesit cheap," n the ssumption hatdemand s constant.6 aw statedthat heprice f commoditys determined y the quantity fferedfor alein relation othe demand, nd that s the quantity ffered

increases, heprice r value declines. He illustrated hepointmostinterestingly y water nd diamonds, xplaining hatdiamonds eremorevaluablethan water, espite he greater usefulness" f the

3. See my study of the elements f Stoicism n liberal conomic octrine,"The Moral Heroand the Economic Man," Ethics, XI, 2.

4. Petty, p. cit., , 9, II, 243.5. Barbon, p. cit.,pp. 13, 16.6. North, p. cit.,p. 34.


27/38


latter, ecause he quantity upplied f diamonds as ess than hatof water. This paradox was noted ndependently y Smith, bout

fifty ears ater, nd illustrated y the same commodities, ut hedid not as explicitly esolve t as Law did.7 Berkeley xpressed heprinciple fprice eterminationn oneofhisqueries:

Whether he value or price of things, e not a compounded roportion,directly s the demand, nd reciprocally s the plenty?8

The opposition o market ontrolwasmade explicit y Child,whopresented list ofnine aws which e said were mpedimentsotrade nd employment. ncludedwere aws which rohibited heexport f coin, aised he price f exports, educed heprice f beer,forbade ngrossing"there eing omore seful rade n a nation"),and imited he upply f abor y restricting ntry nto killed rades.He stated:

It is the care of aw makers irst nd principally oprovide or he people ngross, ot particulars.'

Davenant expressed the same conclusion:

Trade s in its nature ree, inds ts ownchannel, nd best directeth ts owncourse: nd all laws to give t rules nd directions, nd to limit nd circumscribeit, may serve the particular nds of private men, but are seldom dvantageousto the public.'

Petty (as noted above) believed that economicrelations mongindividuals hould be directed by "whatsoever s right reason" andnot by the state. Of all the mercantilists, North endorsed freeexchangemost horoughly:

Nowit may appear strange ohear t said,That the wholeworld s to trade, s but as one nation r people, nd thereinnations re as persons.

That the ossof a trade with one nation, s not that only, eparately on-sidered, ut o much f he rade f the world escindednd lost, or ll scombinedtogether.

That there an be no trade unprofitable o the public; for f any prove o,men eave it off; nd wherever he traders hrive, hepublic, f which hey re apart, hrives lso.

That to forcemen to deal in any prescribedmanner,may profit uch as dohappen to serve them; but the public gains not, because t is taking rom nesubject, o give to another.

That no laws can set prizes n trade, herates of whichmust nd will make7. Law, op. cit., p. 4. Smith, p. cit., p. 28.8. Berkeley, p. cit., Q. 24.9. Child, p. cit.,pp. 55-56,80.1. Davenant, An Essay on the East India Trade, quoted by Whittaker,

op. cit., . 147.


28/38


themselves:utwhen uch aws do happen o ayhold, t s so much mpedimentto trade, nd therefore rejudicial.2

The mercantilist onception of free exchange had a political aswellas economic spect, and both anticipated he deas of the classicaleconomists. Although he mercantilists iffered bout the origin fgovernment hey agreed upon the extent of its powers, which, heysaid, should be limited by law; and the consequent economic ibertywould be favorable o the growth f the economy. Temple said theeconomy could prosper "under good princes and legal monarchies,as well as under free tates" and that t must decline under "tyran-

nical power," "free states" here meaning republican governments.3The words also were used to mean any form of government whosepower was limited, s when Barbon wrote that trade could flourishonly in a "free government," f which a constitutional monarchywas one form. "Men are most ndustrious where they are most freeand secure to enjoy the effects f their abours," he stated.4 In itseconomic pplication, he doctrine f imited power meant that regu-lation of the market should be minimized nd made to apply uni-

formly o all persons nd trades. "All favor to one trade or interestagainst another, s an abuse, and cuts so much of profit rom thepublic," North observed.5

As among the classical economists, here was among the mercan-tilists onsiderable isagreement bout the foundation f government.Some mercantilists nsisted, s Hume did later, that the authorityof government ested upon the "greatest and strongest" mong thepeople. This was Temple's conception. Others, Defoe among them,accepted the contract heory of government which then enjoyed itseminent hour. But these differences id not lead to disagreementover the proper structure f government. The mercantilists wereunited n opposing bsolute rule by a single ndividual and unlimitedrule by the people, and the opposition o both autocracy nd democ-racy came of a profound istrust of power per se. Temple wrote:

Manymen regood nd steemed hen hey reprivate, ll ndhatedwhenthey re noffice.. and manymen omeout, when hey ome nto great ndpublicemployments."

Barbon and Davenant were forcible n advocating constitutional2. North, p. cit., p. 13.3. Temple, p. cit., , 121.4. Barbon, p. cit., pp. 27-28.5. North, op. cit., p. 14. See, however, hilip W. Buck, The Politics of

MercantilismNewYork, 1942).6. Temple, p. cit., I, 366.


29/38


procedures, sserting hat onlyby these means ould he iberty fthe ndividual e secured.7

Their opposition o democratic overnment id not make themercantilists ncritical poligists or n aristocracy; nd they isap-proved f many f the grosser orms f lliberalism hich hey awabout them. Most of them wereopposed o religious ntolerance,and insisted ponthe practicability f allowing achperson o seekhis salvation n his own way. Defoewasvery ritical f the rulingclasses,believing heir ttitude oward rade was an obstacle oeconomicprogress. The Complete nglish Tradesman, arts of The

Complete nglish Gentleman, nd the parabolical meaningf Robinson

Crusoe an be read as an effort o persuade he aristocracy f thenational value of trade and the tradesman. Other mercantilistswrote persuasively f the usefulness f the tradesman nd of thewisdom f giving im greater olitical ower nd a higher ocialposition.

IV

The ideasofpolitics nd of the pricemechanism ave a curiousrelation o the economic olicywhich he mercantilists dvanced.If one read nly heir xpressionsbout conomic ndpolitical iberty,oneeasily ould onclude hat heir olicymust e laisser aire. If,on the other and,one ooked nly t the measures f control heyproposed, newouldhave great oubts f their aissez faire. Thereis a paradox n the mercantilists' nticipating any f the positiveand someof the normative lements f classical conomics nd at

the same time proposing policy uite different rom he classicalpolicy. The mercantilists erereluctant o follow he principle ffreedom o all of the practical esultswhich hey hought t wouldbring, nd, t is equallyclear, hey werereluctant o modify heirideasof iberty n order o achieve hepractical esults heywanted.

It is illuminating o compare he deasof Hales and Smith nthe normative spects f free xchange. When mith bserved hateach individual lwaystries o discover the most advantageousemployment orwhatever apitalhe can command," e concludedthat he"study f his advantage aturally, r necessarily,eadshimto prefer hat employment hich s most dvantageous osociety."Halesdid not think his would lways be so. In another olloquy,it is said:

7. Barbon, op. cit., p. 20. Davenant, An Essay on Ways and Means, etc.,pasuim.


30/38


Knight: very man sa member f the commonweal,nd that that s profit-able to one may be profitable o another, f he would exercise he same feat.Therefore hat s profitable o one, and so to another, may be profitable o all,and so to the commonwealth....Dr: That reason s good adding o much nd more o it). True, t is thatthing which s profitable o each man by himself so it benot prejudicial o anyother) s profitable o the whole ommonwealth, nd not otherwise; r else robbingand stealing, whichperchance s profitable osome men, wereprofitable o thewhole ommonweal, hich no man will dmit.8

Malynes, too, was unable to endorse free exchange completely.He believed t might conflict with the "good of the commonwealth,which s the cause that princes nd governors re to set at the sternof the course of trade and commerce." He held that to allow mer-chants to set the course of trade would be as imprudent s to consultvintners bout laws against drunkedness.9 A similar qualificationwas made by Child:... the profit f the merchant, nd the gain of the kingdom, hich re so farfrom eing lways parallel, hat frequently hey run counter ne to the other,althoughmost men .. do usually onfound he two.'

Although avorable o competition ostlethwayt esitated o approveof t wholly. "Exchange of merchandise ormerchandise s advanta-geous n general; but not n cases where t is contrary o the foregoingmaxims," he wrote, he maxims being that trade should ncrease themoney supply and employment.2 Even the enlightened North wasdoubtful f the universal harmony f elf-interest, lthough he viewedthe disharmony ppositely rom he usual way. He was less troubledthat the individual ould gain at the nation's expensethan interestedin the possibility f the nation gaining t the expenseof the ndividual(as when unwise investment ed to greater employment) Somemercantilists elieved the economy could prosper t the expense ofindividuals, f they engaged n extravagant xpenditure which, how-ever damaging o them, was a stimulant o trade. The idea was setforth y Mun in a chapter alled, "Of some Excessesand Evils in theCommonwealth, which not withstanding ecay not our Trade norTreasure."4 The idea was made notorious y Mandeville n his fableof the bees whose private vices were public benefits. It was not,however, uite as widely accepted as the notoriety f Mandeville'sverse suggests. Davenant, while admitting he possibility, enied

8. Hales, op. cit.,pp. 50-51,my talics.9. Malynes,TheMaintenance f Free Trade, p. 3-5.1. Child,op. cit.,pp. xxvi-xxvii.2. Postlethwayt, reat ritain's Commercialnterest, tc., I, 371.3. North, p. cit., pp. 27-28.4. Mun, op. cit., hap. xv.


31/38


that private xtravagance was the way to wealth, nd submitted hata wise levying of excises would give the lie to the notion that "riot

and expense, n private persons, s advantageous to the public."5These passages indicate that the mercantilists ere aware thatsome of their measures of policy would abridge economic freedom.It can be shown that they were aware of why freedom hould belimited.

One reason was that a free market was not entirely avorableto an increase in the nation's wealth. The other reason was lesssignificant nd the limitation t implied was in no way inconsistentwith classical policy. When, for example, Hales denied that self-interest lways produced universal harmony, e cited the act of theftas a proof actually he had more than this n mind, nd the exampledoes not llustrate is position ompletely). The prohibiting f crimeis not, of course, denial of freedom. Other mercantilists rgued thatthe unlimited freedom f the tradesman would lead eventually tomonopoly, which gain was a trivial xception because free xchangeis, by definition, ompetitive xchange. Indeed the mercantilists'opposition o monopoly s an affirmation f iberaldoctrine, nd manyof them nticipated he doctrine n their ndorsement f competition.Tucker excoriated the regulated companies (which had certainmonopolistic owers) in language suggestive of Smith at a peak ofindignation:

This s the greatest nd most ntolerable f all the evilsofmonopolies. t isa prostitution f the trade nd welfare f the public to the merciless avagesofgreedy ndividuals.'

Postlethwayt nticipated the classical conception f the advantagesof competition, riting:

Domestic ivalshipn trade produces lenty; nd plenty heapness f provi-sions, f the firstmaterials, f abour, nd ofmoney. Rivalship sone of the mostimportant rinciples f trade, nd a considerable art of ts liberty. Whatevercramps r hurts t in these four oints s ruinous o the state, nd diametricallycontrary o its ntent, which s the happiness f the greatest umber ossible fmen.North warned of the devious forms which monopoly could assume:For whenever men consult or he publicgood, s for headvancement f trade,wherein ll are concerned, hey sually steem he mmediate nterest f heir wnto be the commonmeasure f goodand evil.8

5. Davenant, op. cit., pp. 56-57, 139.6. Tucker, p. cit., p. 74.7. Postlethwayt, reat ritain's Commercialnterest, tc., I, 377.8. North, op. cit., p. 12.


32/38


It will be remembered hat Smith said dryly: "I have never knownmuch good done by those who affected o trade for the public good."9

When they insisted that one individual should not be free todeprive nother f his freedom he mercantilists id not take impor-tant exception o the principle f the free market. When, however,they nsisted hat the market ould not be relied upon to guaranteefull employment, he exception was important. They believed thatif the economy were directed by the market, ven a competitive ne,spending would not always be sufficient, peciecould be lost throughexcessive mports, he supply of money for other reasons could be

inadequate, the rate of nterest might e too high, nd the abor forcetoo small and insufficiently roductive.Hence, instead of the classical policy of laissez faire, the mer-

cantilists roposed policy which would utilize the market whereverpossible, upplement nd control t where not, and which would havefull employment s its proximate bjective. There was, then, hisdifference f meansbetween the mercantilists nd the classicists: theformer proposed a relatively controlled market and the latter arelatively ncontrolled ne. There also was a difference n emphasison proximate nds: the mercantilists tressed the full employmentof resources nd the classicists stressed the efficiency f the use ofparticular esources.

Yet it will not do to carry hese differences uch farther. Thedifference bout means was not a fundamental ne. The mercan-tilists did not believe in an economy wholly or mainly directed bythe state, and the classicists did not believe in an economy ntirelycontrolled by a competitive market. The difference bout meanswas a difference ver the amount and kinds of control. Both clas-sicists and mercantilists elieved in what we now call a mixed econ-omy, and they differed ver the ingredients n the mixture. Thiskind of difference, e know today, is singularly hard to define ndto resolve.

The difference n immediate ends full employment versusefficiency f employment also is one which must not be madefundamental. It is very probable that neither he mercantilists or

the classicists would have admitted uch a distinction. The former,I suspect, would have insisted that their policy achieved a greateroutput, and therefore more efficiency, han a policy which gnoredthe problem of full employment. Their implicit assumption wasthat a nation was not free o choose between using all of ts resourcesin one way or another, n order o satisfy he criterion f maximum

9. Smith, op. cit., p. 423.


33/38


output, but that the nation must choose between a policy whichwould produce full employment nd one which would not. The

classicistsprobably would have insisted that once the market hadbeen made competitive nd the conditions stablished or n efficientuse of resources there would be no problem of full employment.They would have granted, erhaps nsisted, hat unwise nterferencewith the market ould create underemployment ut they would nothave admitted underemployment s a problem once the marketwas properly rganized. It is only a later age which can make thedistinction between full employment nd efficient mployment

certain ne; and in order o do this t must define ach of these objec-tives differently rom he way they were defined y the mercantilistsand the classicists. It must assume that a policy which providesfull employment probably would be accompanied by some inef-ficiency n the use of particular esources, nd that a policy whichyields efficiency n the use of employed resources would be accom-panied by a condition of some idle labor and capital. When theobjectives are so defined, choice can be made between the two

policies, and that will be chosen which yields the largest nationalproduct. No clear choice is, however, mplied by the distinctionbetween the mercantilist nd the classical policies. Not only is itunnecessary o speculate over which was correct, ut, t seems to me,the speculation s a little pointless.

VIt is more promising o speculate over the reasons for he differ-

ence between the mercantilist nd the liberal objectives. The mostplausible reason s that the two policieswere developed n differentperiods n which here were different conomicproblems. The greatconcern f the mercantilists ver employment, articularly f abor,may have been forced on them by the unemployment f the six-teenth, eventeenth, nd early eighteenth enturies, which, conomichistorians tell us, and we can infer from contemporary tracts,was considerable. The enclosuremovement eems to have been the

major cause of unemployment n the first art of the mercantilistperiod. By replacing tillage with grazing, the enclosures reducedthe amount of abor required n agriculture nd drove arge numbersof persons ff he and into rural lums and into the towns nd cities.The transfer f large numbers from one occupation to another sdifficult ven under favorable circumstances; nd circumstances nthe sixteenth entury were not favorable. The craft guilds were noteager to increase heir utput t any time, nd one can easily suppose


34/38

LIBERAL ELEMENTS IN ENGLISH MERCANTILISM497

that they werenot pleasedby the hordes who were wept ff helandand sought mployment n the towns.

Another ause of unemployment as the frequent ommercialcriseswhich y their trangeness usthave baffled he arly cono-mists no less than the ater). Although hefluctuations eemnotto havebeen f regular ccurrence, s later yclicalmovements ere,yet these were more than occasional nd sporadic hanges. naddition o these wo types f unemployment, hich odaywouldbe calledfrictional nd cyclical, here eems lso to have beenmuchseasonalunemployment. etty's tatistics n annual and weeklywages n the third uarter f the seventeenth entury uggest hatthe averageworkerwas employed bout thirty-five eeksof theyear.'

It is fairly lear that unemployment as extensive nd quiteclear that poverty was common. The management f these twoproblems as made more han usuallydifficult y a circumstancearising rom he Reformation. When the power of the Catholicchurchwas destroyed herewent with t an organizedmethod fcaring or he poor. An effort as made to placethe responsibilityon ocalgovernments, ut this was not uccessful. he craft uilds,it is true, ooked ut for heirmembers, ut were nable o care forthenewly reated oor rom griculture ven f hey adwished o.

Not only was there ess provision orthe lower classes,butafter hemiddle f the seventeenth entury herewasless interestin theirwelfare nd ess concern ver heproblem funemployment.Under he Tudors here eems o have beena genuine olicitude orthe ower lasses, feeling which erhaps ame of the knowledgethat disaffection ith an absolutemonarch an have disastrousresults. After he revolution f 1688, he monarchy as severelyabridged nd therefore as less responsible or he generalwelfare,whileParliament ouldbe only a diffuse bject of resentment othose whothought he state was not ooking fter hemproperly.Elizabeth ouldsay with reason, Yet this account he glory fmy crown, hat have reigned with your oves." It is difficult oimaginewords f the same sincerity oming rom sovereign fter

1688.It seems, o use today's anguage, hat the unemployment fthe ixteenth nd seventeenth enturies as the result f mmobility,of seasonalfluctuations, f the rigidity f certain rices nd wageswhichwasproduced y the monopolistic ractices f the guilds, ndof frequent nd severe deflations. he nonseasonal nemployment

1. Petty, p. cit., , 244, 305.


35/38


might have been eliminated it now is easy to say) had it been pos-sible to move labor from reas where t was abundant to where t

was scarce and to force a reduction f certain wages and prices norder o make increased mployment rofitable o the entrepreneursof the age. But it does not seem, from their writings, hat themercantilists hought such measures would have been adequate.Although they made proposals for increasing abor mobility andfor making wages and prices more flexible, hey do not seem to haveput much reliance on them. Instead, it seems they had greaterconfidence n inflationary measures: those which, by increasing he

money upply,would

have increased pending nd employment.It is interesting o observe that Great Britain had a similarunemployment roblem bout 200 years after he close of the mer-cantilist period and solved it by methods quite suggestive of themercantilists' roposals. After he first World War there was con-siderable rictional nemployment nd money wagescould not easilyhave been lowered. A few years after he second World War, afterthe inflationary easuresof the Labor Government ad shown theireffect, t was observed by a United Nations report on economicstability, hat the frictional nemployment which had previouslybeen attributed mainly to lack of mobility f labour, melted away,leaving an acute labour shortage."2 This report was written mainlyfrom he viewpoint of Keynesian economicswhich, t is clear, hasan affinity o mercantilist octrine.

In the period when iberal economicdoctrine developed circum-stances were much different rom hose of the mercantilist eriod.There was no longer the problem of managing large amount ofpermanent nemployment, s this effect f the enclosure movementhad disappeared. The internal market of Great Britain was muchbetter organized, n the sense of there being ess immobility f com-modities nd capital as well as of labor. By 1750, the governmentno longer nforced ny important ontrols ver the internal market.The obstacles to price nd wage flexibility eremuch ess formidablethan they had been in the preceding hree enturies. Improvementsin transportation, specially after 1800, brought the parts of the

econom

Elementos Liberales Del Mercantilismo

Documents

Transcript of Elementos Liberales Del Mercantilismo