Economics

A later French writer, who even more em phasized the doctrines of and indi vidualism was Frederic Bastiat (1801-50). His most ambitious work was his in which he argues that there is an essential harmony of interests between labor and capital and between various economic interests. "It will always be historically inter esting,• says Ingram, "as the last incarnation of thorough-going economic optimism, Already however the logic of events had brought about a reaction against such extreme individualism and this book made little impression. More important for their practical effects were his shorter pamphlets against protection and so cialism, which were characterized by a lively and vigorous style.

Other French writers of this period were Augustin Cournot (1801-77), who was one of the first to apply mathematics to the treat ment of economic questions, and Charles Dun oyer (1786-1862). In general the French school simply reaffirmed and developed the principles of economic individualism laid down by the English classical school, but were char acterized by an optimism which contrasts strongly with the pessimism of Malthus and Ricardo.

The Classical School in expositors of Adam Smith displayed more in dependence and originality than did the French writers. Of these may be mentioned K. H. Rau (1792-1870), F. B. W. Hermann (1795 1868), F. Nebenius (1784-1857) and J. H. von Thfinen (1783-1850). Rau exercised consider able influence through his encyclopaedic

Critics of the Classical The work of Smith, Malthus and Ricardo had a certain air of finality and it seemed to their immediate followers that the science of political economy was complete. But even before their task was

accomplished the new system of thought was subjected to criticism and attack. The critics or opponents belong to various groups accord ing as they attacked one feature or another of the classical school. There were first those who opposed the extreme doctrine of individualism and unrestricted competition for which Smith stood; second, those who were antagonized by the broad cosmopolitanism of the classical school and who advocated a national program; and third, those who disapproved of the un ethical features in the principle of self-interest and the institution of private property.

(1) Critics of In the first group fall Lord Lauderdale (1759-1830), John Rae (1786-1873) and J. C. L. Simon de Sis mondi (1773-1842). The first two of these writers pointed out that there is no necessary identity between the interests of the individual and those of society as a whole, and approved of govern ment interference in many cases. According to them a distinction must be made between public wealth and private riches; the increase of the latter does not necessarily mean that the nation is better off. Sismondi called himself a disciple of Adam Smith, but he disagreed with the method, the aim and the practical conclusions of the classical school. He insisted that the method should be more historical and the aim more ethical. Finally he rebelled against the undue emphasis upon the mere production of wealth and the neglect of human suffering in volved in the introduction of new processes and machinery. He agrees with the two former writers in insisting that there is no necessary identity between private and social interests. In his theories of overproduction and crises indeed he almost approaches socialism.

(2) Critics of Free Of all the doc trines of the classical school the one which was most widely accepted was the theory of free trade. In every country this idea had been accepted by economists. And yet it was not long before opponents of this doctrine sprang up, no one of whom, however, was English. The first to give expression to this nationalistic reaction was Adam Muller (1779-1829), a Ger man, who advocated the policy of protection to home industry on the ground that it promoted national feeling. For the same reason he even approved of government paper money and of war. He attacked the atomistic individualism of Smith and insisted upon social welfare.