Wiles - Mercantilism.pdf

7/24/2019 Wiles - Mercantilism.pdf

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/wiles-mercantilismpdf 1/20

American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies ASECS)

Mercantilism and the Idea of ProgressAuthor(s): Richard C. WilesSource: Eighteenth-Century Studies, Vol. 8, No. 1 (Autumn, 1974), pp. 56-74Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Sponsor: American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS).Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2737891 .

Accessed: 02/08/2014 16:57

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 forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Johns Hopkins University Press and American Society for Eighteenth-Century Studies (ASECS) are

collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Eighteenth-Century Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 200.3.149.179 on Sat, 2 Aug 2014 16:57:52 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=asecs


http://www.jstor.org/stable/2737891?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp





http://www.jstor.org/stable/2737891?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=jhup



Mercantilism

nd the

Idea

ofProgress

RICHARD C.

WILES

O

NE

OF

THE COMMONLY

ACCEPTED

interpretations

f

mercantilist

economic houghts the

position hat his

chool of

thought

iewed

the

economic

otential

f

the

world n static

erms,.e., that co-

nomic

progress s a

policy

aim could

only

come

about

through

bidding way ofresources rom competitorconomy.n short,he

mercantilistsre said

to have

viewed heworld

s

being omposed

f

a fixed

uantum

f

resources

nd

thus ne

nation's

ain mplied

loss

to

another.

This

view s

especially revalent

mong

critics

reating he nter-

national

aspects

of

the

mercantilists.he latter's

conomic

policy

suggestions

re said

to nvolve

beggar-my-neighborype

rograms

because

of

the bsenceofthis taticworld iew.Due

to this

nterpre-

tationn the iterature,his haseof economic hought as beenpre-

sented

s

neglecting

he mutual

advantages

f

international

rade

patterns.

The

foremost

dherent f his iew s Eli

Heckscher.n his

famous

workon

mercantilism,

eckschermaintained

hat he

mercantilists

accepted

in

his

terminology)

static s

opposed

to a

dynamic

view

of the economic

process.

t shouldbe notedthat

Heckscher's

interpretationftheterms static nd dynamic s differentrom

their

sual

meaning

n

economic

iterature.or

Heckscher

hey

efer

to

the

potential

or conomic

rogress.

label

ofstatic

pplied

o

an

economic

ystem,

uchas

mercantilism,

eant

hat,

s a

theory,

t

lacked

a belief

n economic

evelopment.

eckscher

dmits

hat

he

word

dynamic

an be used to characterize

he

mercantile

ims

within

he

tate;

owever,

his omestic

ynamism

as

bound

up

with

a static

onception

f the totaleconomic

resources

n

the

world.

Progressouldoccur nternallynly hroughcquisitionsrom ther

countries.'

1

Eli

Heckscher,

Mercantilism,

rev. ed.

(London,

1954), II,

24-25.

Other

authors

holdingsimilar

views are:

Philip

W.

Buck,

The Politics

of

Mercantilism

New York,

56







MERCANTILISM

AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

57

It is

the

contention

f this rticle

hat uch

viewsof mercantilist

thought re inaccurate,

specially

orthe

period

that

has been re-

ferred o as later Englishmercantilism, .e., Englisheconomic

literaturerom pproximately

he astdecade of the eventeenth

en-

tury o the ppearance

f

The

Wealth

f

Nations

n

1776.2

Whenthe

broader efinitions

f mercantilism

tilized

y

Heckscher nd

other

writersre thusbroken

p

intodistinct ime eriods,

hegeneraliza-

tions

sually pplied

to

mercantilismose

someof their orce. or

example,

eckscher

sedthe ermmercantilismo refer o economic

thought nd policyfrom he end of themiddle ges to the age of

laissezfaire.3

urely

historical

ontinuumtretchingver

four

en-

turiesmight aturally

e

expected o admit

ffew

eneralizations

p-

plicable o

the

ntire

eriod.

n the ase

ofmercantilismhis act

has

been

too

ittle oted. or

most f

the

nalyses

f

the

opic

do

not

uf-

ficientlyecount

he

changes

n thinkingnd policies

overthetime

period reated.

ecause of this

problem he period

of laterEnglish

mrcantilismas

escaped analysis

nd remains

argely

no-man's

land in thehistoryf economic hought.or Heckscher, he most

ambitious

nalyst

of mercantilism,

mits

tudy

of

the

eighteenth

century

fter

715.4

While

dmitting

his

ap

in his

treatment,

eck-

scher,

t the same

time,

uggests

hat

t

would ndeedbe fruitfulo

study

his ime

period

as evidence f the

nterplay

etween aissez

faire

and mercantilism.5

his

latterpoint

would perlhaps ustify

Heckscher

n

omitting

hese

ighteenth-century

ritersrom iswork

but forhis statementhat

t is not clear whether here s any sig-

nificantontributionmong themto mercantilisthought n this

period.6 osephA. Schumpeter as maintained hat he

work f this

era,

n his definitionrom he ast

quarter fthe eventeenth

entury

to Adam

Smith,was

a

critical

evision f previouswork:

a revision

which

constitutes he

main analyticaleffort f the mercantilist

writers.

1942),

pp.

28-30; JosephJ.

Spengler,

Mercantilist

nd

PhysiocraticGrowth

Theory, n Theories fEconomicGrowth,d. BertHoselitz Glencoe, ll., 1960),

p. 40.

Spengler

oesmention, ithout

mplification,he shift

n

latermercantilism

to

a

more

dynamic

iew

of thematter

ibid., . 37).

2

Cf.

Edgar

S.

Furniss,

he Position

f

theLaborer n a

System

f

Nationalism

(NewYork,

1957).

3

Heckscher,

ercantilism,,

20.

4

Ibid., I,

183.

5

Ibid.

6

Ibid.

7

Joseph

.

Schumpeter,istory f

Economic

AnalysisNew

York,1954),

p.

362.







58 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

STUDIES

It is

my contention

hat he suggestion f Heckscher

or

further

study f

thisperiodwas indeed

fruitfulne

and that heperiod s,

in addition, ne to which he usual generalizationsegardingmer-

cantilism

o not apply

with he ameforce s

they o to earlier

ras

both n

England

nd on

the

Continent.

he present

rticle

will treat

one

aspect

of

this

broader

onclusion:

t will be shown hat he m-

portant,

asic charge

f Heckscher hat hemercantilists

iewed he

economic otential

f theworld

n

static erms

annot

be substanti-

ated among

ater

nglish

mercantile riters.

Forthewritingsfthis ater haseofmercantilismre dynamicn

Heckscher's

ense.

The

broad

concept

f economic

developments

the

unifying

heme

of

such literaturend

economic

progress

was

foremost

n theirminds.

his

dynamism

as

present

n

their

iews e-

garding

oth

he

domestic conomy which

Heckscher

oncedes) s

was

the

recognition

f

the

potential

or

progress

n the

nternational

economy

n

a

mutuallydvantageous

asis.

These

findings

ermit

n

escape

from

heusualviewof the

problem

s

a mere

reallocation

f

a given, tatic mount feconomic esources hroughnternational

beggar-my-neighbor

olicies.

Economic

development

was

looked

upon by

these

uthors

s the

ong-term

oal

of an

economic

ystem.

This

could

be achieved

by policies

ncreasing rowth

oth

n the

domestic

conomy

s well

as

through

mutual

evelopment

f the

n-

ternational

rade

phere.

n their iew

thetwo realmswere

not

mu-

tually

xclusive

ut

closely

nterrelated.

This

optimistic

utlook

houldnot come

as a

surprise

when

one

considers

he

work

upon English

ntellectual

istory

f the

latter

seventeenth

nd

eighteenth

enturies.

or

this

was

a

period

con-

cerned

n thebroader

reas

of

philosophical

nd

theological

hought

with he ntire

otion

f

the

dea

of

progress

r,

as it has been

called,

thephilosophyfoptimism. 8rnestLee Tuveson, n his Millen-

nium

nd

Utopia,

has sketched

he ntellectualoundationsf

a belief

in

progress

hat

would

ead

a

student

f this

period

to

regard

he

economic

speculation

s

an offshoot

f

the

broader

views

of

the

8

Cf.

Lois

Whitney,rimitivism

nd the

dea of

Progress

n

English

Popular

Literature

f

theEighteenth

enturyBaltimore,

934).







MERCANTILISM AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

59

thinkers

f

the

ime.

n thePreface

o therevised dition

fhis

book

Tuveson

writes:

I

trace,

urthermore,

ne of

themost

ascinating

vents

n

the

history

f

thought-the

oincidence

f

twogreat

deas,

pparentlyntirelyivergent

andeven

ntagonistic,o

produce profound

evolution

n

social

ttitudes

andbeliefs.

he comingogetherfthe

New

Philosophy

nd

he

evival

f

the

eliefna

literal

illennial

nd o

historyroduced

he

dea of

Progress.

I still elieve

y riginal

hesiss

valid:

hat,

ithouthe ombinationf

hese

twogreat

deologies,

he aithn the

ecularmillennialismhat

we know

s

Progress

ouldnever ave risen. or that ombination

reated he

great

characteristicodem eliefhat dvancentechnology,tandardf iving,

and ther urely

aterialspects

f ultures advance

eligiously

nd

pirit-

ually s well-that

man

ets

etter

ndbetters

hecontrolsature

ore nd

more;

nd,

n the ther

and,

here asbeen

hematerialization

f

religion,

to

which,

s

try o

how,

revivalf iteral

ilennialism

ould

asily

ead.9

It is not

my ntent

o

document heconnection

etween hismuch

broader

ptimistic

iew

of

progress

nd

the

dynamism

f ater

mer-

cantilism.hiswouldrequire series fessays nthe ubject. ut t

is

at least

striking

ow

the economic

iterature

f

the

time

reflects

thisworld iew.

Tuveson, hough

oncerned

mainly

with

heological

discussion,

as

contributedome

beginnings

or

onsideration

fthis

broader

uestion.

or

example,

n

treating

illennial

rogressivism,

Tuveson

points

o the

ommercial

nalogies

sed

by John

dwards:

The

ncreasef

knowledge,hicho

Edwards as

n

essentiallementnthe

holy

ommonwealth,

as

explained

n

a more

matter-of-factay

han ny

ofhispredecessorsad conceived.... The greatncreasenknowledges

accounted

or

y

a

more

General

ommerce,'hich ill rise

rom kind

of

apocalyptic

ree

rade-'that

ree

nd

peaceable

ravelling,y

Sea and

Land,

rom

ne

Part

fthe

World

o

the

ther, hich ill e the

uninter-

rupted rivilege

f

tiose

Days. 0

Tuveson

then

moves o the

contemporary

iscussions

egarding he

probability

f

ncreasing

ertility

f

soil as an important

haracter-

isticofmillennial topia. n short, rogress n a unilinear ashion

held the

field.As

Tuveson

puts t:

The cyclical hilosophy

evived

in the

Renaissancewas

submerged y

an

optimisticoncept f the

wholehuman

ace as involvedn a

great nward

nd upwardmove-

9

Ernest ee

Tuveson,

Millennium

nd

Utopia New

York,1964),

Preface o

the

Torchbook

dition,

. vi.

10

bid., p. 137.







60 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES

ment.

At

the

ime f

Bacon, the uestionwas

one of thepossibilityf

progress; ithin hundred ears, ossibility ad becomecertaintyn

men'sfaith.

In the iterature

n

thehistory

f

economic

houghthere as been

some nteresting

iscussion bout

the

effecthephilosophical iews

ofthe imeheldby economists ad upon the conomicwritingf the

period

n

question. n

his

monumental istory fEconomicAnalysis

Schumpeter

as

denied

he

nfluence

f

philosophy

n economic n-

alysis:

. .

. economic analysis

has

not been shaped at any timeby the

philosophical pinions hat conomists appened o have, though t

has

frequently

eenvitiated

y

their

olitical ttitudes. '2

But n this

context chumpeter

s

dealing

with

the development f analytical

techniques

f

economics

nd not with

broader

ranges f economic

speculation.

e continues:

. .

.

my

hesis

oesnot

mply

f

course

hat uman

ction tselfnd the

psychic

processes

associatedwith t-motives

or methods f reasoning,

whetherolitical

r economic r of

any

other

ype-are

uninfluencedy,or

uncorrelatedith, hilosophicalrreligiousr ethical onvictions.... We

are

now concerned

ith he

propositions

f

the

ciences

f human

behavior

about

thishumanbehavior

nd are not

questioning

hat

eligious

r

philo-

sophical

lements

must

ndeed

enter

nto

any explanations

f

this

behavior

whenever

hey

im at

completeness

rrealism.And this

lso

applies

o

the

scientific

conomist's

politics'

nd o

ny

dvice r

recommendation

e

may

tender

ith

view

o

nfluencingpolicies.'

All that

ur

thesisnvolves

s

that

it does

not

pply

o

his

ools

nd theorems.'

3

In an

interestingommentary

nd

analysis

f

this

position

rofes-

sor Alfred

.

Chalk

has

interpretedchumpeter's

aveats o

include

the

rea

of essential

ormative

roblems. '4

halk,

while

partially

agreeing

with

chumpeter

boutthe nfluence

f

philosophy

n eco-

nomic

ools,

makes

n

important

istinction

hat an be

usefully ept

in

mind

when

dealing

with he nfluencef

the

broad

notion f imit-

less progress

f the

eighteenthentury pon

the

outlook

f

the ater

Englishmercantilists.halk continues:

11

Ibid.,

p.

152.

12

chumpeter,

istory f

Economic

Analysis, .

31.

13

Ibid.

(Schumpeter's

talics)

14

Schumpeter's

iews

on

the

Relationship

f

Philosophy

nd Economics,

Southern

conomic

Journal,

4 (1958),

272.







MERCANTILISM AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

61

No

allegationasbeen

made

hat

ny pecificnalytical

oolused

by

econ-

omists asextracted

rom

hilosophy,

.

. I

have

nly

ried

o

ndicate

hat

the electionf

tools

and

theorems

y

classical conomists

as,

n

some

re-

spects, arrowlyircumscribedyvirtuef ertainhilosophicalreconcep-

tions hich ere

widely

ccepted uring

hat

eriod.

imilarly,

he o-called

evolutionarypproach, hich

chumpeter

egards

s a

distinguishing

eature

ofhis wn

nalytical

ystem,

oes

not

ictatehe se

of

ny pecific

nalytical

tool,

lthough

t

does ead

to

the seof

new ypes

f ools.

t

s

n

this

ense,

therefore,

hat

hilosophy ay

have

shaped'

conomic

nalysis.15

Chalk's

approachprovides

vantagepoint

fromwhich ne

may

view he nfluencefthephilosophyfoptimismpontheeconomic

writingsf

the

ater

nglish

mercantilists.or

the

narrow, tatic iew

of

theworld s a gigantic conomic hessboardwith

fixed umber

of

pieces,where

conomic ain

s

only chievable y a new

configur-

ationof the

pieces,

no

longer ittedheoverall ision f the

thinkers

ofthis

eriod.

wouldnotextend

he nfluence

urther.

hile t

can

be

established hat he

notions f

optimismnd

mutualism

n

inter-

national

nd

domestic

conomic

progress

were

propergoals, there

wasstill essimisms to thepatternf economic rogressn thefu-

ture.

f

cultural nd intellectual

istorians,

ike

Tuveson,

an

docu-

ment

bly

nd

effectively

he volution

f a unilinear

s

opposed o a

cyclical

view

of

potential

rogress, he

literature

f

later

English

mercantilisms not this

onsistent.16 herewerestill

manyof these

writers ho viewed

heeconomic

rocess,

hough ertainly

apable

of

development,

s

essentiallyyclical

n

nature,

ith

ecurrentrob-

lemsthat

had to

be

continually et

by

changing conomicpolicies

andprograms.

It

is

now

necessary

o turn

o the

iteraturef

ater

Englishmer-

cantilism

nd

attempt

o show

hat

pinions

oncerning

he

develop-

ment

potential

f

the

economy

tem from

what is

essentially,

n

Heckscher's seoftheterm, dynamic ision f thepossibilityf

progress

n

the

nternational

conomy.

The

denial

ofthe

presence

f

this

ynamic

utlookhas

rather ru-

15

Ibid., p. 281.

16

Cf.

Whitney,

rimitivismnd

the dea

of

Progress;

Gladys

Bryson,

Man

and

Society

Princeton,

945).







62

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

STUDIES

cial implications

or he

ntire nalysis

f ater

mercantilism.

f it

be

concluded,

withHeckscher

nd

others,

hat hemercantilist

riters

saw no chance for domesticdevelopment ithout warlikeraid

upon,

or

selfish

olicy

toward,

thernations-in

short, y taking

away

the

gains

of othernations

through

uccessful

ompetition

abroad-then

a host

frelated deas and assessments

tems

rom his

static

otion. his problem

s

most

videntn the pplication

o ater

mercantilism

f national

power

and economicnationalism

s the

bases of mercantile olicy.

It is probablyrue hat hedynamicdealofthe atermercantilists

derived

rom he

widespread

otion

hat

England,

t least from

he

mid

or

early

eventeenthentury

o themiddle

fthe

ighteenth,

as

in

a

state

of

economic

decline

or

stagnation.

his

idea

is

strikingly

common

n thepamphlet

iterature

f thetime.With

rudimentary

statistics

t

their

all,

and

with ven

more

udimentary

tatisticalnd

analytical

methods,

his dea

was too

easily ccepted y

these

writers

as

an excuse

for

program.

treatment

fthis

matter ould

require

an essayon theeffectsf economic ifeon ideas,as the ineofap-

proach

uggested

n the

previous

ectionwould

follow

p

the

pposite

notion-the

influence

f

ideas

on economic

nalysis.

Yet

certainly

circumstances,

r

supposed

circumstances,

ffected heir

hinking,

though

n what

proportions

s difficult

o

say.

f economic

tagnation

were een

as a pressing

ifficulty,

nd these

writers eld

a

sanguine

view as

to

potential

rogress,

hen

dynamic

pproach

would cer-

tainly

e

a

logical

element

n their tructure.

The denialofthepresence fthisdynamic utlook mongwriters

such as

Davenant,

Defoe,

Massie,

and Tuckerhas rather rucial m-

plications

or

henotion

f mutual

dvantage

n

external

ommerce;

second,

he

possibility

f

pecialization

n

nternationalrade

atterns

as a

source

f

mutual

ain;

and

third,

he

potential

enefitso be de-

rived

rom

evelopment

f

the

nternational

conomy.

THE

MUTUAL

GAIN FROM TRADE

The recognition

f

trade nd

internationalelations

s a two-way

street

s a

fine

tarting

oint

o

begin

to

show

the

dynamism

f the

international

utlook

f

aterEnglish

mercantilists.heir

treatment

of mutual

ains

from

rade s

quite urprising

n

light

f theconven-

tional assessment

f

mercantilistoctrine. or

it is

somethingf

a

cliche n

economicthought

nd history o definemercantilism

n







MERCANTILISM AND

THE

IDEA

OF

PROGRESS

63

terms

f

nationalism,

ational

ower

ims,

nd

the ike. The

writers

under onsiderationhow hisnarrow

nterpretation

o be

erroneous

andoverly estrictiveor his ater haseofmercantilism.

As

early

s

1695 SimonClementwrote

tract

ntitled

Discourse

ofthe

GeneralNotions

fMoney,

Tradeand

Exchange

s

they

tand

in Relation ach to

Other,

he

very

itle

f

which

oints

o

the nter-

dependence

f

the various lements f the

economy

een

by these

authors.

lement

resents

rather

onsistent

onmercantilist

iew

of rade nd

tsbenefits. e

states hat he

profits

rom

ommerce re

not to be

computed

y

considering,

s the

earlymercantilistsad,

merely articular

rade

balances,

but that

the

balance of

trade

n

general

hould be taken nto account.

Clementwarns

the

foreign

trader

what

he should

xpect

n his

dealings:

.

.

.

neither

ay

e

xpect

odrive

Publick rade n

he

World

ithout

ome

such

eeming

isadvantages,

ith

more

Reason,

han

hat

Private

Man

should

efuse o

Buy

ofhis

Neighbour

hat is

Necessity

equires,

nd

he

cannot

o

convenientlyrocure

rom

nother,

ecause

hat

eighbour

ad

no

Occasiono ayout ny fhisMoneywith

im.17

This

notion, hough

n the urface

rather

ractical

eason

for

rec-

ognizing

he

gains

from mutual

rade,

does

contain

lements f

international

ncomemovements

nd their

ffects. t

any

rate,

ome

fifty ears

before

David Hume

composed

his

now

famous

plea

for

recognition

hat he uccessful

rade f

France

was

beneficial

o

Eng-

land

n his

essay

ofthe

Jealousy

f

Trade,

writers

spoused

imilar

ideas, though erhaps s in the case of CharlesDavenant,rather

grudgingly.

riting

n

1696 Davenant

alks f

the

Dutch aim of

m-

poverishingngland

through

rade

warfare:

When

ll

this

ome obe

duly

weighed,y

a

sagacious

eople, o

doubt

They

will

ind,

hat

heir

rue

afety

nd

Welfare

ependspon

he

trength

and

Prosperity

f

England.

hat

hey

must

upport

heir

eighbours

ho t

diminish

omething

romheir

rowing

tock nd

ncome.

hat

he oncerns

ofTrademust ot ethe nly bject f heiresignes.'8

And

n the amevein

a

pamphlet

rittenn

1698

signed T.T.

puts

it

n

thismanner:

17

London,

1695),

p. 15.

I8

A Memoriall

oncerning

reditt

1696),

n

A

Reprint

f

Economic

Tracts,

d.

G. H.

Evans

Baltimore,

942),p.

107.







64

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

STUDIES

Now

many oalledge,hat

t s the

xportationf

everal ommodities

hat

we

bring

or eturns

rom

oreign

arts, hat ffords

hemost

enefitothis

Nation, hichagreeo,yet everthelesshereremany minentommodi-

ties,

whichre mported

ndpays

heKing onsiderable

uties

whichmust

be spent

n

England,

. . so that

t s

most

lear hat

heConsumption

f uch

things

t

home

s

as

profitable

o he

Nation,

s

those hat re xported

gain:

for

f

we can

neitheronsumehemthomenor

Export

hem broad,

ow

should ur

Neighbours

e able

to

pay

for ur

Manufactures,orwhich

e

have

hose ommodities

n

Exchange.'9

The same dea, perhaps

n

a more

ophisticated

one, ppears

n

Daniel Defoe'sfamousournalisticndeavor upporting proposed

treaty f

commerce

etween rance and England, a result

f the

Peace

of Utrecht.

his

journal,

entitled

Mercator:

or,

Commerce

Retrieved,

as writtenn opposition

o a similarWhig,

ournal

that

aided

n

thwarting

he

treaty.

t contains

hefollowingtatementf

the

gain

from rade:

Trading

ations,

ho'

Christian,ught

o

maintain

ommerce

ith llthe

people heyanget y.Gains the esign fMerchandize:isa Commuta-

tion f

Merchantable

ommodities

etween

ne

Country

nd

another,

nd

for

he

mutual

rofitf he raders.

he

Language

fNations ne o

another

is,

let

hee

ain yme,

hat

may ain y

hee.20

These arenot,

s

shall

presently

e

discovered,

solated

uotations

nor are

they

nfrequent

n

their

ppearance.

And what

s

more, hey

were written,

s

in

the case

of

Davenant

and

Defoe,

by

influential

peopleof theday.

In 1734,

Jacob

Vanderlint

oints

o what eems

o

have

been

by

then

rather ommonplace

bservation.n

his

tract

Money

Answers

All

Things

e

puts

he

matter

uccinctly:

All

Nations

f

the

World,

therefore,

hould

be

regarded

s one

Body

of

Tradesmen,xercising

their

arious

Occupations

or

heMutualBenefitnd

Advantage

f

each

other. 21

he same

notionwas

expressed

learly

n

a

tract hat

Professor

. Somerton

oxwell,

a

leading analyst

f

seventeenth-

andeighteenth-centuryconomic iterature,as called a character-

istic

mercantilist

ract. 22

he

anonymous

uthor

f thiswork

writes

in 1746:

19

Some

General

Considerations

ffered,

elating

o

our

Present rade London,

1698), p.

23.

20

No.

27 (23-25

July

1713).

21

In

A

Reprintof

Economic Tracts,

ed. J.

H.

Hollander

(Baltimore,

1914),

p.

47.

22

This

notation,

n

Professor

Foxwell's

handwriting,

ppears

on the

acket

of this

tract

in the Kress Library

of Business

and

Economics

of Harvard University.







MERCANTILISM

AND THE IDEA OF PROGRESS

65

'Tis ndeed,

xtremely

nfortunate

o be

placed

n

such

troublesome

Situation,

here urnational appiness

o intimatelyepends pon

hat

f

other eople; utwhilst eare tradingation,hustmust ecessarilye;

ourCustomers

re ur

trength

nd

upport;

educe

hem,

herefore,

o

uch

a Statef

Weakness

nd

Dependence

s no

onger

ohave t n their

ower

to ay

ut heir oney

ith

s,

nd

wemust ink

f ourse....

If

myNeigh-

bour's nkindness,

r

ngratitude,

r

Misconduct,

ill

not etmesave

him

for

is wn ake,

elf-Interest

ustmakemeendeavourt east o save

him

for

my

wn.23

In

the

ame

manner

Malachy

Postlethwayt,

riting

efore he

well-

known ssayofHume,maintainshat no trading ation anmain-

tain

n intercourse

fcommerce

ith

thers,

f

they xpect

o

sell

all,

and to purchase

no commodities

n

return. 24

A further

xcellent

xample

f

the

expression

f themutual

gain

from

nternational

ommerce

hat

tresses

he

mport spect

of

trade

benefits

ppears

n the

work

of Nathaniel orster:

The

real

utility

ofany

branch f

commerce,

onsidered lone

and without

espect

o

any

other ranch,

risesnot

from

ny

balance n ts

favour,

utfrom

the

greater lenty

t occasions f

every hing ecessary nd

useful

n

life, nd

themore ndividuals

t

enables

o

partake

f

suchplenty. 25

This statement

f

Forster

hows n awareness fthegainsfrom

rade

on a much

morehumanitarian

asisthan

he arlier tatements

hich

stress,

n

accurate

conomic

erms,

he trict

uantity

mechanism

f

interchange.

hile

t

cannot

be

argued

hat

he dynamic

otions

that re

here

being

emphasized re without

large aspect

of self-

interest,hisdoes notdenythe thesis f thisarticle:thatthe ater

mercantilists

eld therewere

gains

to be made

internationally,nd

greater rogress

nd

developmentould be brought

bout

both

n

their

wn domestic

conomy

nd in that

of

their rading artners

which,n the ongrun,

wouldbe of

benefito all.

This

aspect

of

the

topic may

be

summarized

y quoting

n ex-

ample

of a more

philosophical

tatementf themutuality

f trade

which tresses he

point

hat elf-interest

n both ides,with

rading

cooperation nd noteconomicwarfare,will conduce to economic

gain

and mutual

understanding.

his rather emarkable

tatement

appeared

n

a tract

y Archibald

Campbell n 1739. The

piece is

23

The

Important uestion

iscussed .

.

(Dublin,

1746),pp.

22-23.

24

Britain's

ommercialnterest

xplained nd

Improved . .

(London,1757),

1,

71.

25

An Inquiry nto

the

Causesof the

High Prices

ofProvisions

London,1767),

pp.

13-14,note

1.







66

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES

basically an attack

on

Mandeville.

While

treating he sources of

moral virtue

Campbell

discusses

he

Reciprocal Friendship nd

Esteem of one nationwithanotherduring rading elationships.

Self-interest

s

the

proper

oundation

or

uch

relations

nd

for

he

progress

f commerce.

ampbell,becoming bit more

entimental

than

most f

the

economicwriters

f thisperiod, tates:

And

cannot

ut

bserve,

hat

ccording

o

the

nfluence

f

my rinciples,

this ommerce

aturally

ecomes

niversal,

nd

s propogated

sic]allover

thenhabited

orld,

s far s

Self-Interest

ancarry s;

For t

s promoted

from Desire fterniversalove andEsteem, hichs wecannotcquire,

without

dministringsic]

o

he

elf-Lover

Happiness

f

others,

o

wewant

always o

have

t

expressed

o us

by

a

Return f

the ike

Benefits,

r

such

Thingss favour

ur

nterest.26

INTERNATIONAL SPECIALIZATION

This theme

f

mutualityncludes n allied notion

hat s usually

attributedo

post-Smithian

iterature

nd

especially

o the

Classical

Schoolofthenineteenthentury.his s the ecognitionhat, eyond

the

mutual

gain

from

rade,

he

extension

f the

nternational

ivi-

sion

of

abor

was a

very

eal and

profitable ossibility.

ndeed this

concept

s

a sine

qua

non formutual

gain.

t has

been

argued

hat

the

mercantilists

eglected

he o-calledfactor

ndowment

asis for

trade

nd

did

not

work t nto

heir

heoretical

tructure.27

o doubt

thismodern

xplanation

or

rade

s

not

present

n

its

most

elegant

form.

et

recognition

f

specialization

s

the

foundation or

trade

can be foundn aterEnglishmercantilistritings. s early s 1701

this dea

appeared

n a

tract

ntitled onsiderations

n

the

East-India

Trade.

This

essay

s

one

of the

many ttempts

o

show

that

he

East

India

Company

was

not uch

a drain n

English ullion

s

was

often

charged.

his s an

example

f

the

specialpleading ype

f

tract

f

the time.

But even

f

these

uthors

id

begin

with

a vision

and

attempt

o

fit heir

nalysis

o

it, they

t least

arrived t

some

m-

26,An nquiry

nto

he

Origin f

Moral Virtue

..

,

2nd

ed.

London, 739),

p.

132.

27

This

criticism as

been made

by Joseph

pengler.

ee

his

Mercantilistnd

Physiocratic

rowth

heory, p. 40,

54. He

suggests

he

export

f

work

hesis

might

ave beenwoven nto factor

pproach

o trade. t seems hat

he

mercantil-

ists,

ertainly

hose

of

the

period

n

question,

aw

the

factor

lement

without

his

latter

pproach.







MERCANTILISM

AND

THE IDEA

OF

PROGRESS

67

portant

eneralizations.28

his

tract,

n

treating

he

general

enefits

of

trade, tates:

As oftens I consider

hese

hings,

am

ready

o

ay

with

my elf,

hat

od

hasbestowed

is

Blessings

pon

Men hat

aveneitherearts

or

kill

o

use

them.

or,why

re

we

surrounded

ith

he

ea?

Surely

hat ur

Wants

t

homemight

e

supply'dy

our

Navigation

nto

ther

ountries,

he

east

nd

easiest

abour;

By

thiswe taste

he

Spices

f

Arabia, et

never

eel

he

scorching

un

which

rings

hem

orth;

e share

n

Silks

which ur

Hands

have

never

rought;

edrinkf

Vinyards

hich e

havenever

lanted;

he

Treasures

f hoseMines re

ours,

n

which

e

have

never

igg'd

sic];

we

only loughhe eep, ndreap heHarvestfevery ountryn heWorld.29

This

notice

f

specialization

nd ts

meaning

or

rade

ecomesmore

explicit

n

a

1715

work

of John

Haynes: The

divine

Providence

hathnot

been more

onspicuous

n

anything,

han

n

endowing if-

ferent

ountries

with

particular

roductions,ome

n

a

less, others

in

a

greater

egree,whereby

hey

might e

mutually

ependent

p-

on each

other. 30

ivisionof aborwas

even seen to

contradictne

ofthemore ypicalmercantiledeasofprohibitionfcompetingm-

ports:

Manufactures

made

in

England,

he

ike of which

may be

imported

rom he

East-Indies, y

the

abourof

fewer

ands, re

not

profitable,

hey

re a loss to

the

Kingdom;

he

Publick

herefore

oses

nothing y the

oss

of

such

Manufactures. '3'

The

idea of

cooperation, o

alien to

the

usual

interpretationf

mercantilism,

ecame a

common

notion

nd

is

widespread

uring

this

ater

period.

n

examining

he

effects

ftrade n

international

goodsArthur obbs writesn 1729: This makes n effect very

Nation,

hat s

possess'd f

an

extended

ommerce,

njoy

hebenefit

ofthe

best oils

and

Climates;

ho

perhaps,

rom

heir

ituation,

hey

might

therwise

e in the

worst.

rade

makes he

People ofthe

whole

28

A case n

point

would

be

William

Ashley's amous

iscussion

f

the

Tory

ffect

on the

volution

f

free rade

doctrine.

ee

W.

J.

Ashley,

The

Tory

Origin f

Free

Trade

Policy,

n

Surveys

istoric

nd

Economic

New

York,

1900),

pp.

268-303.

29

HenryMartyn, onsiderationsn theEast-IndiaTrade London,1701), n A

SelectCollection

f

Early

English

Tracts

n

Commerce,

d. J.

R.

McCulloch

Cam-

bridge,

954),

p.

585. This

tract s

not

ttributed

o

Martyn

y

McCulloch,

hough

e

mentions he

possibility.

he

1720

reprint

n

the

Kress

Library

f

Business

nd

Economics

arries

oxwell's

ttribution

o

Martyn.

30

Great Britain's

Glory

. .

.

(London,

1715),

p.

1.

31

Martyn,

ast-India

rade,

p.

583.







68

EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY

STUDIES

Earth

s one

great

amily upplying

ach other'swants. 32

This ast

recognition,

adebyDobbs

in

discussinghe

benefits

f a freer rade

withreland,s temperedythe nsertionfthe tatic otion eferred

to

earlier.

or he does

admit hat

f

relandwere

admitted

o Eng-

land's trade

hen

whatever

e

[Ireland] gain

by

our trade, s only

what oreigners

ust ave

had

from

hem

England],

n case

Ireland,

were

not

n

being. 33

ut even

hereDobbs

continues:

I

would

wilingly

ope

herefore,

hat rom

just

Representation

nd

view

f

our

Trade,

hey

ill

ee that ur

Prosperity

nd

Wealth

ontributeastly

o

the rosperityndWelfarefBritain;nd hats ong sa Harmonyspro-

moted

etween

s,

our

mutual

appiness

ndriches

ill

ncrease;

nd

what

ever

we

do n

promoting

ach ther's

elfare,

ontributes

na

greategree

o

the rosperity

f

both.34

Even

without

his

ast

passage,

enough

has

been

presented

o

show

that

he static

notion

n

the nternational

phere

does

not admit

of

easygeneralization.

For the dea ofdifferencesn factor ndowments,dded to the

possibility

f

mutual

gain

and division

f abor on an

international

basis,

was

changing

he oneof he racts.

his

s

put

n extreme

orm

by

Matthew

ecker

who

gives

he ituation natural

xplanation,

not

often

dvanced

n

this

olicy-minded

ra:

...

for

Nature

as

given

arious

roducts

ovarious

ountries,

nd

hereby

knit

Mankind

nan ntercourse

o

upply

ach

other's ants: o

attempt

o

sell ur roducts,ut obuyittlernone romoreigners,sattemptingn

Impossibility,

cting

ontrary

othe ntent

f

Nature,ynically

nd

bsurdly;

and,

s

ours

s a

populous

anufacturing

ountry,

ighlyrejudicial

o our

own

nterests:

orcould

we

raise

ll

Necessariesnd

Varieties

ithin

ur-

selves,

hisntercourse

esignedy

Nature ould e

destroyed.35

Joseph

Massie

expresses

similar

notion

n

a

well-knownssay of

1750:

ThenecessaryndusefulroductionsfNaturere opartiallyndun-

equally

istributed

n

different

ountries,

hat

t is much o

be

doubted,

32

An

Essay

on

the

Trade

and

Improvementf

Ireland

Dublin,1729),p.

17.

33

Ibid.,p.

146.

34

Ibid.

35 An

Essayon theCauses

of

theDecline

of

the

oreign

rade . .

(London, 744),

p.

67.







MERCANTILISM

AND

THE

IDEA

OF PROGRESS 69

whetherherere ny woNationsnEurope nwhich n equalQuantityf

Labourwould e requiredo enable certain umberfPeople o ive

with

the ame egree fConveniencef hey ere obe confinedo the roduc-

tions f hat ountrylone, ndnot eceivenyHelps rom

thers, hich

believe very newill gree n,whoconsiders,here reno twoCountries

whichurnishnequalnumberf heNecessariesfLife nequal

lenty,nd

with he ameQuantityfLabour.36

As

culminationo this econd spect f he dynamic nternation-

al view

that

was

part of the general tructuref the

aterEnglish

mercantilists,ne furtheritation houldbe made: an

anonymous

work hat eems, arly n theperiod, o have noted he mplications

of

both hemutual ain from rade s well as thepossibilitiesf the

internationalivision f abor. n discussing he benefits

f foreign

commerce his uthor tates:

...

theycommerce

nd

navigation]

nlarge

ur

Knowledge

f

Persons

nd

Things,elieve

ur

Wants,ndgive s theAdvantagesndBenefit

f

every

Climate.

hey oin themost

istant

egions, o their

mutual

rofit: hey

make ven urAntipodesobeourNeighbours;nd o assist sinThings

proper

or

urHealth, ood,

nd

Raiment,

ith

legance

nd

Variety.hey

provides withMaterials,or arryingn

our

Manufactures:

nlarge

ur

Ideas

nd

Conceptions

f

hings:

nd

bring

s

acquainted

ith he

roducts

of

llthe ountriesf he arth. yhelp f hese, ehave he

Advantagef

the nventions

nd

mprovements

f

every

ation:And

every

Man

s en-

abled, ccording

o

his

ngenuity,

odo

something

or is

wn

enefit;

nd o

assist isNeighbour

n

doing hatmaymake

is ife

more appy nd

asy.37

THE

ADVANTAGES

OF

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The third nd ast

aspect

fthe

nternationaliewof ater

nglish

mercantilism

s most

nteresting

nd,

at the

ame

time,

omes

as no

surprise

f

one has

noted

hestress n this iterature

f the

potential

for

he

domestic

evelopment

f the

economy.

his

aspect

s

merely

a

single

lement

n

a

broader

nterest

n

general

conomic

growth

and

development.

As an extensionf he deastreated bove ofthemutual dvantage

from

oreign

ommerce

nd an international

ivision

f

abor,

t s to

be

expected

hat hesewriters

hould ee

development

f

other

oun-

36

An Essay on

the

Governing auses of theNaturalRate of nterest1750), n A

Reprint f EconomicTracts, d. J.H. Hollander Baltimore, 912),pp. 54-55.

37Some

Thoughts oncerning

overnmentn General:And our Present ircum-

stances

n

GreatBritain

nd Ireland

Dublin, 1728),pp. 38-39.







70 EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY STUDIES

tries

s a possible ource of furtheringheir wn

advancement.

fully eveloped heory f thebenefits enrved rom iding

the eco-

nomicprogress fother ountries annotbe expected, utthere s

recognitionf his

o

somedegree, ertainlyf he nterdependencef

theworld conomy.

his

s especially vident n theworkof Daniel

Defoe who,more onsistentlyhanmostof thewriters

reated, re-

sents hemost elling lements f dynamismn histheories.

t times,

however, venDefoe seems

o

fallback on

the

old rigid utlook f a

fixed

mount

f

world

rade,

concept hatdoes not correlatewith

his development-mindedness.

The

Preface o

his

work,

A

Plan

of

the

English

Commerce,

ets he

toneof dynamismhat haracterizes

is

voluminous conomicwrit-

ings.He writes n thisworkof formulatingplan for

England,

not

for heworld

or

even

for

Europe.

But theresults howmost

vividly

hisworld ttitude nd also theelement f development

otentialn

his

thinking.

n

the

Preface

he

sets he

tage

forwhat s to come

by

mentioning

is

intention

f

treating

he

commerceof

England:

. . . how t s arriv'd o tspresentMagnitude; ow to bemaintained

and

supported

n tsfull

xtent; and

which

s,

or

ought o

be, the rue

End of all such Attempts:)How it may yet be improv'd

nd en-

larg'd. 88 e then roceeds o showhowthis nlargement ayoccur

with

developmentbroad:

TheWorlds

wide;

here

renew

Countries,

ndnew

Nations,

ho

may

be so planted,o improv'd,nd

the

eople

o

manag'd,s to

create new

Commerce;ndMillionsfPeoplehall allfor urManufacture,honever

call'd or

t

before.39

And

again

n

the ame

work:

There

s

hardly

hat

ountry

o be nam'd

n

the

World,

here

here

s no

Room

for

mprovementy ndustry

nd

Application;ay,

we

find

n

n-

dustrious

eople

ften

hriving

nd

wealthy

nder he

weighty

iscourage-

ments

f

barren

oil,

n

nhospitablelimate, tempestuous

ea,

a

remote

Situation,aving et omethingrother or radeowork pon.40

This s

certainly

world

utlook,

nd

yet

n

the

same

book there

s,

as hinted

bove,

trace

f

he ld

narrow

iew

of

the tatic mount

f

38

(London,

1728),

p.

viii.

39

bid.,

pp.

ix-x.

40

Ibid.,

p.

33.







MERCANTILISM

AND THE IDEA

OF

PROGRESS

71

worldtrade.

This

fact s difficult

o correlate

withDefoe's

earlier

ideas,

but t does

notdestroy

heoverall

one

of hiswork.A

tract f

1753 shows he ame outlook:

Being n

such goodCondition,

here s not any

Necessity

o envytheir

Neighbour's

rosperity,

or

o be jealousof

theirmprovements,

s they

an

never

ail ofind utnewWorks

or

he urpose f

Barter....

Nor can

t

njure virtuous,

ndustrious

eople,

that heir

eighboursre

equally

o,

as it willbe best

forboth

ohave Plenty,

s from

hence om-

merce

reciprocally

lows,

and

knits the

Bonds ofAmity.4'

Therearealso

many

pecific

uggestionss

to the

possibilities

f

developing

oreign

conomies nd theprobable

ffectsf thisupon

England's

conomic rowth

hrough

he

provision

f

markets or

her

products.

gain,

Defoe,

applying

he

general

notions uoted

above,

sees

thegrowth

otential

orEngland n the

development

f Brazil.

One should

gain

note

here

he dea of ncome

movements

n

trade:

The Consequence f thisDiscovery fWealth inBrazil]has beenthe

Encrease

f

People

n the

Brasils

n

a

prodigious

Manner,

he

Enriching

ll

thosePeople,

and

their

hanging

heir

Way

of

Living,

rom Mean

to a

Splendid

nd

LiberalEquipage

and

Expence,

even

to Profusion.

his

has

made

heir

emands f

all

kinds f

European

Goods,

or heir wn

Consump-

tion ncrease

o wonderfully,

nd thevast

Return f Money

n

Specie

has

evenenrich'd

hewholeNation

f

Portuguese

n

Europe,

which as also

en-

creased he

Demand of

Manufactures

or heir

ome-Consumption

s

well,

and

forthe ame Reason

as

it has done

n

the

Brasils,

he Wealth

nd

the

Luxury f anyNation lways ncreasingogether.42

Postlethwayt,

n

1757,

sees the same

possibility

ordevelopment,

his

time

n

Africa:

If oncewe

could

propogatesic]

and

establish

urfashionsmongsthem;

if hey ould

be

brought

o pride

hemselves

n

iving

n

our

manner,

nd

that

itwas

thoughtisgraceful

ot o clothe

nd

ive

n

such ertain

manner;

ould

not this

naturally

oute

their

assion

to

obtain

thoseproductions

f

their

country,

o

give

nreturn or ur commodities? ouldnot this nimatend

inspire

hem

o

search heir

ountries

or

every

hing

aluableboth above

ground,

nd

below,

o maintain

traffic,

hat

nce

became

generally

ashion-

able

amongst

hem? . .

May

we

very

easonablyudge

that hiswould

prove

the

natural

onsequence

f cultivating

uch

a

commercial orrespondence

41

William

Horsley, rans.,

he Universal

MerchantLondon,

1753),

pp. 5-6.

42

Mercator,

o.

124 (6-9

March 1713).







72


with hese eople?

nd

when

ur

people

ame o obtain free

nd

friendly

tradingntercourseith

henatives, aywe notpresage

hat reat

must e

the onsequence?orour ustomsnd ashionsouldpread rom ationo

nation;

romountryo country;ill ytravelnd

ommerce,

e

became s

familiarlycquainted

ith his ich

nd

extensive

ountrys with ny

n

Europe.43

The

sameviewpoint

s

clearly xpressed n

a

fine

ract

of

Joseph

Massie n 1760:

Some ersons ill

robably

ay, hat houghhe eople

fother ountries

cannotlter heCourse fNature,hey anneverthelessake reaterm-

provements

n

their ands

han

ave

hitherto

een

made,

nd herefore

e

ought

otto

rely

pon

pastExperience

n

this

espect;utsuchPersons

shouldonsiderhat

he

moremprovements

ther ations ake,

he

reater

will heir ants

e;

for here

reno

Peoplewho,

n

Proportion

otheir um-

bers,want

o fewforeign

ommodities

nd

Manufactures

s

the

Savage

Indiansnd

Africans,

or o Peoplewho onsume

o

much oreignroduce

as the

nglish

ation.

Massie then

concludes:

Certainly

hese Mattersdo mostclearly

shew,

hat he

British

ationhath

not

anything

o

fear,

ut

much

o

hopefor,

rom ommercial

mprovements

eing

made n

other

oun-

tries. 44

It may be objected

hat he connection eing established ere s

really

he mereextension

f

the

typically

mercantilistesire o

in-

crease

exports.

his s

certainly part

of

t,especially

n

the

ugges-

tions or xpandingmarketsn the essdeveloped reas. Buttheres

muchmore ontained

n

these

deas.

For

the

mutuality

n

trade

nd

thenecessity

f

mporting

n

order o

export

ffectivelyertainly oes

not

accord

n

any

manner

with

he

earlier

mercantile

verstressn

exports

t

any

cost.

n

addition,

here

s

a

change

n

the

tone

of

the

writingsrom

arlier

mercantilism:hange

n

the senseof the

great

possibilitiesn expanding ommerce

ather

han

n

taking waytrade

from

thers.

hese

writers ad a concept fcommunity

f

nations

anda very lear dea of aninternationalconomy hatwas extremely

interdependent.

osiah

Tucker ums

up the dynamism

n the

views

of

thesewriters:

43

Britain's ommercial

nterest,I,

218-19.

44

A

Representation

oncerning

he

Knowledge f

Commerce s a National

Con-

cern

(London,

1760), p.

23.







MERCANTILISM

AND THE

IDEA

OF PROGRESS

73

...

wemay

ay

tdown

s anuniversal

ule,

ubjectovery

ew

xceptions,

that s an

ndustrious

ation

annever e

hurt

y the ncreasing

ndustry

of tsNeighbours;nd s t sso wiselyontrivedyDivine rovidence,hat

all

People

hould

ave

strong

ias towardshe

roduce

ndManufactures

ofothers;

. . so

tfollows,

hatwhen

his ias s

put nder

roper egula-

tions,

he

espectivendustry

fNation

ndNation

nables hemo be

so

much he etterustomers,

o mprove

na

friendly

ntercourse,

nd obe a

mutual

enefito each

other.

Private

hopkeeper

ould ertainly

ish,

that isCustomers

id

mprove

n

heir ircumstances,

ather

han

o

behind-

hand;

ecause

very uch

mprovement

ould

robably

edound

ohis

Ad-

vantage;

herean here

e

theWisdom

n

the

ublic

hopkeeper,

trading

People, oendeavouromake he eighbouringtates ndNations,hat re

his

ustomers,o

very

oor

s

not

obe able

o tradewith im?45

The evidence

resented

ould

seemto argue gainst

he applica-

tion f static utlook

o ater

nglish

mercantilism.

he

widespread

recognitionfthe nterrelatednessfeconomic ctivityn an inter-

national

cale,

added

to thenotion f a

mutually

dvantageous

or-

eign

rade

oes

far

beyond

treatmentf

nternational

ommerce

s

a

source

fone-sided ain

held

bythe typical

mercantilist.

utual-

ity

f

gain

and even

hopes

for hedevelopment

ftheworld

conomy

to

further

hesemutual

dvantages

o not

admit he harges

madeby

Heckscher nd

others hat

mercantilism

as a static nternational

system. s a result fhiscontention, eckschermaintains hat

he

laissez-faire octrine

was

the

dynamic

ne;

and

that,

though

he

mercantilists,

s

the

aissez-fairedvocates

were ater o

do,

believed

in human

progress

o some degree,

his

was to be achieved only

through

gain

from

ther ountries.

his

he calls

the tragedy

f

mercantilism. 46

his

outlook

s indefensible

or t least

a

century

during

is

period

f

treatment.

eckscher

elies

n a limited

umber

of

quotations

mainly

rom uch

early

mercantilists

s

Colbert

nd

Montchretien,s wellas earlier nglish uthors.47owever, s men-

tioned

bove,

Heckscher

oncedeshe made

no research overing he

period

fter 715,

eventhough

e ventured

o make generalizations

4-5

our Tracts

n Political

nd

Commercial ubjects,

nd ed.

(Gloucester,

774),

p.

43.

46

Heckscher,

Mercantilism,

I, 25-26.

47

Ibid.,

26-28.







74


concerning

his

period.

One such

generalization

s

that

t offered

n

interestinglend of mercantilistnd laissez-fairedeas.48Actually,

thisblend existed rom t least the ast decade of the seventeenth

century. eckscher oes, ndeed,point o the fact hat ome of the

seventeenth-centuryriters, otablyNorth, resented

ariations

n

the

tatic heme, ut this

does not alterhis basic conclusions.

In an article ublished

fter is book Heckscher, pon

criticism,

modified ome of his earlier iews,but he held to his original on-

tention hat hemercantilistsere tatic n outlook.He onlynoted

conceptofdevelopmentnd progresswithrespect o thedomestic

economy,

nd

this

nly

s a result

f

an international

aidupon their

trading artners.n

his

words: The attitude

o

economicmatters

was national nd not nternational. 49is position s summarizeds

follows:

It

is true hatmercantilistselieved

n

their lmostunlimitedbility

o

develop

he

economic esources f their wn

countrya

belief

hat

was even

more

trongly

eld

by nineteenth-century

riters

nd

politicians),

ut

they

onlyhopedto do so attheexpense f their eighbours.hat thewealth f

theworld

s

a

whole ould

ncreasewas

an dea

wholly

lien

o

them,

nd n

thiswaytheywere static o a degree.50

This

view s

impossible

o defend n

the

ight

f the

evidence

re-

sented

n

this article.

For

the

citations ndicate he

naccuracy

f

criticism,

uch

as

Heckscher's, hat hemercantilists

acked an atti-

tude

recognizinghange

nd that

hey

were not

nterestedn inter-

nationalgain and worldtrade on a mutualbasis. By neglecting

writers

n the

period

of

ater

Englishmercantilism,

eckscher

and

critics

ollowing im)

have

overlooked

n entire

orld

f

deas

which,

if

not

requiring

hem o

change

heir

ssessments

adically,

ould at

leastmake

them ivide

heir

reatments

f

mercantilismnto

distinct

time

eriods.

BardCollege

48

Ibid.,183.

50

Eli

Heckscher,

Mercantilism,

conomic

History

eview,

(November 936),

48.

Wiles - Mercantilism.pdf

Documents

Transcript of Wiles - Mercantilism.pdf