Sismondi and His French Contemporaries

1 SISMONDI AND HIS FRENCH CONTEMPORARIES HELMUT O. PAPPE I If Marx, himself an outstanding historian of economic doctrines, regarded Sismondi in 1848 as the head of a school of thought established in both France and England and, if Lenin still dreaded the influences of Sismondi's disciples half a century later, it does not appear evidently convincing that his work should have been completely neglected in the France of his day. On the contrary, there is, in the contemporaneous literature, ample attestation of the fact that he was deemed to be a very important figure indeed. Political economy as a scholarly discipline was still in its early stages at the time, primarily concerned with the school of the Physiocrats or 'Economists' from Quesnay and Turgot to Dupont de Nemours, and with the classical political economy of the followers of Adam Smith. There were soon attempts at taking stock of what had been achieved by precursors and recent writers. In England, John McCulloch sketched an historical account in 1824 which was soon translated into French by Sismondi's teacher Pierre Prevost.1 In France, after some early sketches in the 1770s, by Dupont de Nemours in his brilliant periodical Éphémérides du Citoyen, Jean-Baptiste Say gave an historical account in his Cours complet d'economie pretique of 1829.2 However, it was left to an Italian writer, Count Guiseppe Pecchio, to write the most systematic and influential History of Political Economy in Italy3 which was to serve as model to the French writers on the subject in the late 1830s. The publication of such a pioneering work in Italy was not fortuitous. Pecchio was able to make use of the collection in 50 volumes of the works of Italian classical economists by Custodi between 1803 and 1816, containing reprints of their works as well as biographical sketches; J-B. Say's historical precis was based upon Custodi as well; in particular, the study of the Neapolitan Antonio Serra, claimed to be the founder of the science of political economy, may have brought home, or at least confirmed, to Say the significance of the productive power of industry as compared with agriculture and commerce.4 Another Italian author, given special attention by Pecchio was Giammaria Ortes (1713-1790), an author who condemned the 'science of enrichment' as being fraudulent as well as inefficient because of its neglect of an equitable distribution. These were ideas close to Sismondi's thinking. In point of fact, Pecchio was a 1 J.R.McCulloch A Discourse on the rise, Progress, Peculiar Objects and Importance of Political Economy, 1824 2 'Histoire abregee des progres de l'economie politique'. 3 Storia della economia publica in Italia, 1829; French translation: Histoire de l'economie en Italie - Abrege critique des economistes Italiens, Paris 1830 2 devoted follower of Sismondi whose Nouveaux Principes he had closely analysed as early as 1819 in three review articles published in Italy before he had to seek refuge as an exile in Spain, Greece and, finally in 1828, in Brighton, England, where he died in 1835.5 Pecchio gave more than a mere history of doctrines; he took account of their historical context as well. He contrasted the socio-political conditions prevailing in Italy and England respectively; in the latter, the achievement of civil liberty preceded the science of political economy, whereas in the former, political economy was called upon to help bring about modern liberty. Italian economists had the edge on monetary questions, Free Ports and banking, all of which were part of their national heritage. On the other hand, English authors had immediate experience of the division of labour and of colonies. It was in England that a precise methodology and vocabulary was evolved as well as a hypothetical treatment of purely economic phenomena. On the debit side, however, was the pursuit of mere riches and personal profit as the decisive criteria, contrasted with the wider, if more vague, perspectives of Italian economists who took into account extra-economic considerations such as public welfare, la felicita pubbica, actually a blend of the scholastic Public Good with utilitarian happiness. Italian economists had to adapt their teaching to the less advanced conditions of the Italian economy. They were more concerned with creating a political and structural framework, within which the initiative of entrepreneurs could be released, than with the finer details of laissez- faire as it was practically feasible under the sway of already existing British legal and commercial traditions. There was a distinctively neo-mercantilist element in Pecchio's theory of development which was in keeping with the teaching of his great Italian precursors Pietro Verri and Cesare Beccaria. In his analysis, Pecchio did not do justice to the political economy of the Scottish eighteenth century.6 What he meant to expose was the English doctrine of Ricardo and his followers, especially John McCulloch; he overrated the significance of the Ricardians who represented a minority among British economists. Pecchio's History made a momentous impact on French writing of the 1830s, that is, soon after Sismondi's Nouveaux Principes had seen their second edition in 1827. The pre-eminent French economic historians of the 1830s were the Viscount Alban de Villeneuve-Bargemont and Adolphe Blanqui. 4 Breve Trattato delle cause che possono far abondare li regni d'oro e argente... etc, Napoli 1613. McCulloch, on the other hand, deprecated Serra, probably because he knew only the (misleading) title of the book, see Pecchio, op.cit.p.76, also Schumpeter, op.cit. on Serra. 5 More about Pecchio will be said in the chapter dealing with Sismondi's role in the Italian intellectual Risorgimento. 6 Hutcheson and Hume, in the Stoic tradition, regarded beneficence and benevolence as the motives of virtuous action; Adam Smith distinguished between natural and artificial virtues which were motivated by benevolence and justice respectively. 3 Both published Histories of Political Economy in the second half of the decade. However, Villeneuve-Bargemont expressed views on the history of economic thought first in his massive 3- volume work Christian Political Economy, Studies of the nature and causes of Pauperism in France and Europe and of the measures to alleviate and to prevent it.7 In his eyes, Christian Political Economy epitomized 'a new school' which had come into being under the leadership primarily of Malthus and Sismondi, a school which was made distinctive by a general similarity of principles and, in particular, a common hostile reaction to the most important principles of Adam Smith. The members of this school were said to be the first to have brought to light the pernicious consequences of laissez faire for the labouring classes. Villeneuve-Bargemont's political History of Political Economy appeared in 1839; though it was preceded in 1837 by Adolphe Blanqui's History of Political Economy in Europe, a more penetrating and systematic work, it met with sufficient success to justify a second edition in 1841.8 Setting out from Bacon, Locke, the Encyclopedie, and Rousseau, and using Burke for his motto, the author employed his narrative to foster his ideal of a harmonic consensus of the principles of morality, legislation and political economy (agriculture, commerce, and industry). Following Pecchio, he found the English classical school wanting in this respect. He censored it as the product of 'harsh Machiavellianism', an 'inhuman act of calculation', leading to disastrous consequences for the general welfare of the people, unless corrected by legislative intervention. Instead of taking moral and religious considerations into account, Adam Smith was said to have based his thought on the theory of the production of riches and the egoistic self-interest of individuals. He had left out of consideration the question of equal distribution which had come to present the central problem of the new French school of political economy. A reaction recognising the weaknesses inherent in Smith's theory had become inevitable in the light of the economic crises experienced by the emerging industrial society. While most leading French economists were followers of Jean-Baptiste Say, who had adapted Smith's thought to industrial reality, Villeneuve said that 'it was Sismondi (an author equally acclaimed by France, Italy and Switzerland) who had opened up a vaster horizon than Smith by defining political economy as the study of the means by which the greatest number of people, in a given state, can participate to the highest degree in physical well-being as far as it depends on government... Switzerland can rightly take pride in a political economist whose works have made the most important contribution to the revelation of, and the fight against, the dire consequences of 7 M.le Vic. Alban de Villeneuve-Bargemont, Economie Politique Chretienne. Recherches sur la nature et les causes du Pauoerisme en France et en Europe et sur les moyens de soulager et le prevenir. 3 tomes, Paris 1834 8 Histoire de l'economie politique, Bruxelles 1839; 2nd ed. 2 vols. Paris 1841 4 the English political economy, we are speaking of M. Simonde de Sismondi'.9 According to this new conception, Sismondi holds 'that two elements must always be taken together into consideration: the increase of happiness in depth, and its diffusion among all classes. He set his sight on wealth because it profits the population; he examines population because it participates in wealth... it is thus that political economy becomes foremost the theory of beneficence... A new political school has constituted itself... which has detached itself in several important points from the abstract theories of Adam Smith and his disciples.' Villeneuve-Bargemont's image of Smith was evidently that of Pecchio. It did not do justice to Smith's own conception of benevolence as the motive force, together with justice, of the human virtues.10 However, it bears witness of the towering influence in France of the teaching of Sismondi and J-B.

Load more