ECONOMICS 643 generalizations. They stand or fall by the strength of the or false. It is not so easy to determine their relevance evidence for or against them. In the history of economics and usefulness in relation to distinctively modern problems, or the biography of Ricardo it is of interest to show that or to indicate within what limits their work is of perhe anticipated later writers, or that his analysis bears the manent value, and we can only deal with these questions test of modern criticism; but no economist is under any in their more general aspects. obligation to defend Ricardo’s reputation, nor is the fact It must be clear to every observer that the economists that a doctrine is included in his works to be taken as a of the classical period, with the one exception of Adam demonstration of its truth. The appeal to authority Smith, will speedily share the fate of nearly all scientific cannot be permitted in economics any more than in writers. They will be forgotten, and their books will not chemistry, physics, or astronomy. But the cases stated be read. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, if it has ever above suggest more or less false issues. There has been been, has long ceased to be a scientific text-book. Whether no revolution in economic science, and is not likely a modern economist accepts his views or not is of no to be any. The question we have really to determine is importance. There is probably not a single chapter in the how we can make the best use of the accumulated know- Wealth of Nations which would be thoroughly endorsed by ledge of past generations, and to do that we must look any living economist. But the reputation of the book and more closely into the economic science of the 19th its author is quite independent of considerations of this century. kind. The Wealth of Nations is one of the great books Any one who has taken the trouble to trace the history of the world, many of the sayings of which are likely to of one of the modern schools of economists, or of any be more frequently quoted in the future than they have branch of economic science, knows how difficult it is to been in the 19th century. Malthus is already an author say when it began. “Anticipations” of method and whose name is probably more widely known than that of doctrine can generally be found by the diligent investigator any other economist, but whose works are rarely read, and in the economic literature of his own or a foreign country. studied only by a small proportion of the few people who So that cross-sections of the stream of economic thought write books on the history of economic theory. Of will reveal the existence, at different times, in varying economic students, many are unaware of the fact that he proportions and at different stages of development, of most wrote any other book than the Essay on the Principle of of the modern “schools.” Again, the classification of an Population, and what is of permanent importance in that economic bibliography at once shows how varied has work is contained in the generalization which it suggested been the character of economic investigation, ranging from to Darwin. Moreover, modern economists, while accepting the most abstract speculation on the one hand to almost in the main the general tenor of Malthus’s theory of technical studies of particular trades on the other. Of population, would not agree with his statement of it. the great army of writers who flourished in the first half Like Malthus, Ricardo owes his reputation very largely to of the 19th century some were closely identified with the theory associated with his name, though it has long the utilitarian school, and the majority were influenced in ceased to be stated precisely in the terms he employed. a greater or less degree by the prevailing ideas of that But there are very few people in the world who have made school. Others, however, were hostile to it. In many a careful study of his works; and although his theory of works, such as those of a statistical or historical character, rent has a wide and increasing application in economics, there are frequently to be found passages which could have it is not comparable in general scientific importance with been written in no other period, but are only of the nature Malthus’s theory of population. It is already impossible of ejaculations and do not affect the argument. In stating to take J. S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy as a the position of economics during this time we cannot ignore text-book. Important as it was for thirty or forty years, all writers, except those who belonged to one group, how- it will soon be as little read as M‘Culloch’s Principles. ever eminent that group may have been, simply because For the rest of the economists of this period, it is difficult they did not represent the dominant ideas of the period, to see how they can escape oblivion. When the generation and exercised no immediate and direct influence on the whose economic training was based upon Mill has died movement of economic thought. We must include the out, the relevance of “ the old Political Economy ” is not pioneers of the historical school, the economic historians, likely to be a question of any interest to ordinary educated the socialists, the statisticians, and others whose contri- men and women, or even to the great mass of economic butions to economics are now appreciated, and without students. whose labours the science as we know it now would have The explanation of this decay of interest does not lie been impossible. If we take this broadly historical view upon the surface. It is frequently supposed that the of the progress of economics, it is obvious that even in influence of the “ old Political Economy ” has been graduEngland there was no general agreement, during the 19th ally undermined by the attacks of the historical school. century, as to the methods most appropriate to economic But great as the achievements of this school have been, it investigation. has not developed any scientific machinery which can take Suppose, now, we ignore the writers who were inaugurat- the place of theory in economic investigation. If our ing new methods, investigating special problems or labori- view is correct that, broadly speaking, the two ways of ously collecting facts, and concentrate attention on the regarding economic questions are complementary rather dominant school, with its long series of writers from Adam than mutually exclusive, there does not seem to be any Smith to John Stuart Mill. It is the work of these reason why the growth of the historical school should have writers which people have in mind when they speak of the been destructive of the “ old Political Economy ” if it had “ old Political Economy.” There are several quite distinct been well founded. The use of the historical method has, questions we can ask with regard to them. That they in fact, raised more reputations than it has destroyed, bemust be studied closely by every one who wishes to follow cause by keeping carefully in view the conditions in which the history of economics goes without saying. That they economic works have been written, it has shown that many must be studied by the economic historian is equally clear, theories hastily condemned as unsound by a priori critics owing to their practical influence and the fact that they had much to be said for them at the time when they were furnished the theoretical bases of much of the economic propounded. This observation is true not only of oldpolicy of the 19th century. This is true whether their world writers like the Mercantilists, but also of Ricardian method is good or bad, whether their conclusions are true economics. No one is concerned to prove that the Ricardian
