抄録
Most of the recent research on Malthus's agricultural bias has suggested that Malthus present this physiocratic idea in his first Essay on Population (1798). However, when considering Malthus's evaluation of agriculture, it is important to make distinctions among his physiocratic inclination, his agrarian or agricultural bias, and his protectionism of agriculture. This paper demonstrates that his agricultural bias in the first Essay was non-physiocratic.
First, his explanation differing from the normal physiocrats' explanation of the surplus as the ‘clear rent’, Malthus grasped the ‘surplus’ uniquely. He explained that, when the landlords obtain food, they secure their own food first, then the remaining ‘surplus of food’ can be allotted to the labourers. Second, Malthus opposed the physiocratic meaning of the productive-unproductive distinction between agriculture and manufacture. The emergency of obtaining food under condition of scarcity is considered to be crucial. In the case of scarcity, even the non-profitable agriculture should be preferred to the manufacture, because only the former can provide food for the poor; the latter simply provides luxuries for the rich. Utilizing this explanation, Malthus estimated only the agricultural as useful and ‘productive’. Recent research has misinterpreted these unique ideas presented in the first Essay of Population.
