Annals of the Society for the History of Economic Thought

Show abstractHide abstract

The history of economic thought should be studied in light of the latest historical studies, since its main purpose as a field of inquiry, generally speaking, is to interpret economic writings in historical context. ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ as defined by P. J. Cain and A. G. Hopkins is the most important paradigm in the historical study of modern Britain in the last thirty years. It describes a British society in which between 1688 and 1850 the landed, in alliance with the moneyed and commercial interests, have dominated the economy and polity. This perspective is rooted in recent interpretations of the industrial revolution which stress that the manufacturing interests did not make a steady or complete rise either to economic or political supremacy.
This paper challenges the traditional view of Adam Smith, the author of the Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and the Wealth of Nations (1776), who predicted that industrial capitalists would become hegemonic in British society in the nineteenth century. This challenge is carried out by rereading the historical dimension of the Wealth of Nations in favour of the ‘Gentlemanly Capitalism’ thesis. Our conclusion is that Smith considered the ‘civilized society’ to be one engaged in agrarian capitalism in which a progressive landed gentry holds economic and political hegemony. In a word, the Wealth of Nations expounded the Political Economy of the landed gentry. Our interpretation of Smith basically supports Cain and Hopkins's view with the exception that it does not include the commercial interests as they do in the list of gentlemanly capitalists.

View full abstract

Download PDF (1625K)

As a contribution to the research for the history of economic theory and social thought, this paper clarifies the significance of the “Gentlemanly Capitalism” thesis proposed by P. F. Cain and A. G. Hopkins in the mid-1980's in the field of English history, particularly Social and Economic history.
First, we examine the emergence of this thesis chronologically focusing on its methodology and analyse the unique view of investment that characterises this thesis. Second, following the disputes surrounding its iconoclastic proposition, we summarise its shortcoming in the lack of the consumption perspective in dealing with the class policy. Third, concerning Cain's reseach on the imperialism theory of J. A. Hobson, the significance of the P. F. Clarke's criticism is discussed. In conclusion, “Gentlemanly Capitalism” thesis is judged as a static theory of the investment struture. A dynamic analysis of the social process of policy making is missing.

View full abstract

Economics today is confronted with great difficulties as it attempts to theoretically treat environmental concerns and many other serious problems. This situation, in my view, has been brought about partly by the way of thinking that confines economics largely to the analysis of the price mechanisms of goods in so far as they find their way into the market. On the contrary, the conception of “moral economy” as formulated by E. P. Thompson recognises that many important facets of the life of people in a society exist outside the market. Through research into historical sources of the food riots in eighteenth century England, he found that there existed a traditional and customary right to subsistence among the labouring poor. These poor repeatedly rioted against increases in corn and bread prices in times of dearth, selling them at prices they set themselves. In light of this history, Thompson severely criticised Adam Smith's theory of free trade in the corn market as victimizing the labouring poor, and hence he criticised Smith's political economy as a whole. However, despite his correctness in emphasising the necessity for remedies to scarcity among the poor, he seems to have misunderstood the character and nature of political economy in general. Political economy from Smith to J. S. Mill and economics even after the 1870s sought to remedy the poverty of the labouring poor as a subject and to reconcile their rights to subsistence with the right of property.

View full abstract

I. Wallerstein advanced a theoretical and historical account of the origins and structure of the modern world-system. There are two important points in his theory. First, he criticized the traditional theory of the state. In the modern world-system theory, he holds, the subject of analysis is not the nation-state but inter-state relations. Second, he denied the possibility of national development in the modern world-system. In his view, the constituent institutions in the system such as nation-states cannot develop independently, but rather merely change their economic and political position within the system.
World-systems analysis emerged as a critique of current social science, and while there exist some theoretical contradictions to resolve in this type of analysis, it is concluded that it has raised important questions for current social science to grapple with. In Race, Nation, Class by Wallerstein and Balibar, we find a promising direction in which to develop the modern world-system theory.

View full abstract

Register with J-STAGE for free!