Lars Magnusson, the Political Economy of Mercantilism

【書評】 Lars Magnusson, The Political Economy of Mercantilism London: Routledge, 2015, 230 pp. The motivation behind this book is to con- wealth with money, nor even trust in a test the enduring influence of the old inter- doctrine of the favorable balance of trade pretation of mercantilism derived from （58-59 and 93-94）. Therefore, Adam Adam Smith’s classic definition. Many Smith’s position that the “favourable bal- historians still continue to use the term ance of trade” served as the theoretical “mercantilism” to refer to a doctrine and core of mercantilism is untenable: neither an over-simplistic theory based on the no- the idea of a surplus of money or bullion tion that wealth is equivalent to money as the key to wealth and power, nor the er- and, therefore, the main policy goal of an ror of confusing money with wealth ap- economy is to achieve a favorable balance pear in the main body of mercantilist liter- of trade（ x, 3-7 and 46-47）. ature（ 100 and 103）. With insights from nineteenth-centu- Early seventeenth-century mercantil- ry German and English historical schools ist writers supported a favorable balance （19-23）, this book challenges this popular of trade because an increase in the amount view on mercantilism and defines it as an of money circulating in an economy early modern discourse that deals with the served as a stimulus to trade and industry: attainment of national power through eco- trade could prosper only when there was nomic plenty and vice versa. The author an abundance of money in the country opposes Karl Marx’s still-influential treat- （112）. However, even this primitive view ment of mercantilism in the Capital as a steadily lost ground in the economic de- rationalization of the necessary economic bates in England during the seventeenth means of “primitive accumulation”（ 44） century. Most mercantilists, at least from and instead supports both István Hont and the end of the seventeenth century onward, Erik Reinert in interpreting mercantilism could be described as free traders than as as a system of economic policy for em- protectionists. For them, the level of em- powering the nation state in a situation of ployment that foreign trade could provide, fierce international competition for power a “labour balance of trade” or alternatively and wealth（ 46）. a “foreign-paid-income,” was a far better From the late sixteenth century, mer- indicator of favorable trade（ 117 and 123）. cantilism was considered as “a programme The author then goes on to point out for power and plenty,” not as an abstract that these mercantile discussions led to adoration of money, or the confusion of new insights that a commercial economy 44 経済学史研究 58 巻 2 号 had laws of its own and that demand and 1620s and extensively referring to primary supply constituted its main regulating sources and manuscripts. In contrast, the mechanism. Thomas Mun, for example, ar- weakest link of the book is his theoretical gued that money and bills of exchange are approach to mercantilism. It is certainly commodities, the prices of which are regu- wrong to describe all mercantilists as pro- lated through the forces of supply and de- tectionists in the modern sense of the term, mand in the same manner as those of other and it is equally wrong to characterize commodities. Therefore, any attempt to Adam Smith as a doctrinaire free trader（ 3 regulate the exchange rate at a particular and 11-12）. However, the author’s alleged level is futile（ 140-41）. Mercantilists such reconciliation between the mercantilists’ as Dudley North, Isaac Gervaise, Thomas opinions with regard to free trade and the Mun, and Edward Misselden clearly be- foreign-paid income interpretation of trade lieved in the existence of an independent that was offered against the favorable bal- economic sphere outside polity and state ance of trade theory on the one hand, and （124-25, 149 and 153-54）. their protectionism that they regarded as The mercantilists certainly neither necessary for the domestic industry to constituted a “school” with a single theo- grow on the other, needs further elabora- retical belief, nor agreed on political mat- tion. ters such as protectionism or freedom of Unfortunately, there are too many ty- trade（ 208）. However, their “science of pographic errors and incorrect descriptions trade” emerged from the 1690s onward, in this book, as is usually the case with and developed a view of the economy as a Routledge publications. For example, Jean system or process with laws of its own Baptiste Colbert（ 1619-1683） was the （221）. They agreed that well-regulated or seventeenth-century Minister of Finance ordered trade would employ the maximum （1661-1683） not “the eighteenth-century number of people and then a nation could French finance minister”（ 3）. The author’s make gains from trade; thus, the task of a treatment of Colbert is weak, perhaps be- good government was to carve out the cause while extensively referring to C. W. rules for “political commerce”（ 173-74 Cole, French Mercantilist Doctrines before and 198）. The author concludes that mer- Colbert（ 1931）, he does not make any ref- cantilism was a series of continuous dis- erence to his more important work, Col- cussions that developed a common lan- bert and a Century of French Mercantil- guage or vocabulary（ 208-09）. The extent ism, 2 vols.（ 1939）. Despite these and to which Adam Smith was more radical some other minor mishaps, this excellent than his mercantilist forerunners on issues book is a must for any historian of early such as free trade is still debatable（ 209）. modern economic thought. As an economic historian, the author （Hiroyuki Furuya: Tokushima Bunri is at his best in Chapter 5, detailing the University） historical context of the debates in the .

Load more