Advertisement

Who’s Afraid of Giants?

  • Riccardo RosolinoEmail author
Chapter
  • 20 Downloads

Abstract

This chapter traces the way in which Smith’s thought was distorted and revised with specific reference to the effects that the combinations phenomenon could have on the labour market and wage-setting. At the end of the eighteenth century, the notion that conspiratorial strategies aimed at creating threatening presences with monopolistic intentions could reciprocally cancel each other out slipped into the background once again. The passing of the Combination Laws was the final nail in the coffin of this idea: no one should be entitled to resort to such actions. Yet, for many people, these associative strategies were nothing more than the spontaneous organisation of society. Twenty-five years later the scenario had radically altered. This chapter illustrates the path that led to the abolition of the Combination Laws and to the countervailing powers being stripped of their old moral robes and cloaked instead in the garb of the new liberal economy.

References

  1. Aspinall, A. 1949. The Early English Trade Unions. Documents from the Home Office Papers in the Public Record Office. London: The Batchworth Press.Google Scholar
  2. Caeys, G. 1994. The Origins of the Rights of Labor: Republicans, Commerce, and the Construction of Modern Social Theory in Britain, 1796–1805. The Journal of Modern History 66 (2): 249–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dicey, A.V. 1904. The Combination Laws as Illustrating the Relation Between Law and Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. Harvard Law Review 17 (8): 511–532.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dicey, A.V. 2008 [1914]. Lectures on the Relation Between Law and Public Opinion in England During the Nineteenth Century. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  5. Eden, F.M. 1797. The State of the Poor. Or an History of the Labouring Classes in England, from the Conquest to the Present Period, 3 vols. London: Egerton, Bremner, White, Davis, Payne, Robinson, Debrett, Faulder.Google Scholar
  6. George, M.D. 1936. Revisions in Economic History: IV. The Combination Laws. The Economic History Review 6 (2): 172–178.Google Scholar
  7. Ginzberg, E. 2002 [1934]. Adam Smith and the Founding of Market Economics. New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Grampp, W.D. 1979. The Economists and the Combination Laws. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 93 (4): 501–522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hampsher-Monk, I. 1991. John Thelwall and the Eighteenth-Century Radical Response to Political Economy. The Historical Journal 34 (I): 1–20.Google Scholar
  10. Hampsher-Monk, I. 2006. British Radicalism and the Anti-Jacobins. In The Cambridge History of Eighteenth-Century Political Thought, ed. M. Goldie and R. Wokler, 660–687. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hodgskin, T. 1825. Labour Defended Against the Claims of Capital. London: Knight and Lacey; Edinburgh: Baynes; Glasgow: M’Phun; Dublin: Westley and Tyrrel.Google Scholar
  12. Hollander, S. (1973). The Economics of Adam Smith. London and Toronto: Heinemann Educational Books/University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  13. Hutchison, T.W. 1978. On Revolutions and Progress in Economic Knowledge. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. McCulloch, J.R. 1824. Combination Laws—Restraints on Emigration, etc. Edinburgh Review XXXIX: 315–345.Google Scholar
  15. Milgate, M., and S.C. Stimson. 2009. After Adam Smith: A Century of Transformation in Politics and Political Economy. Princeton, NJ and Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Mingardi, A. 2018. Thomas Hodgskin, Rational Optimist. Economic Affairs 38 (1): 38–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Moher, J. 1988. From Suppression to Containment: Roots of Trade Union Law to 1825. In British Trade Unionism, 1750–1850. The Formative Years, ed. J. Rule, 74–97. London and New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  18. Nockleby, J.T. 1994. Two Theories of Competition in the Early 19th Century Labor Cases. The American Journal of Legal History 38 (4): 452–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. O’Brien, D.P. 1970. J.M. McCulloch. A Study in Classical Economics. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  20. Orth, J.V. 1991. Combination and Conspiracy. A Legal History of Trade Unionism, 1721–1906. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
  21. Polanyi, K. 1944. The Great Transformation. The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. New York and Toronto: Rinehart & Company.Google Scholar
  22. Ricardo, D. 2004 [1951–1973]. Letters, 1819–June 1821. In The Works and Correspondence of David Ricardo, 11 vols., vol. 8, ed. P. Sraffa, with the collaboration of M.H. Dobb. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
  23. Rothschild, E. 2001. Economic Sentiments. Adam Smith, Condorcet and the Enlightenment. London and Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Stack, D. 1998. Nature and Artifice. The Life and Thought of Thomas Hodgskin (1787–1869). Woodbridge: Boydell.Google Scholar
  25. Thelwall, J. 1796. The Rights of Nature, Against the Usurpations of Establishments, Letter I. London: Symonds and March.Google Scholar
  26. Thompson, E.P. 1991 [1963]. The Making of the English Working Class. London: Penguin.Google Scholar
  27. Thompson, N.W. 1984. The People’s Science. The Popular Political Economy of Exploitation and Crisis 1816–34. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Thompson, N. 1998. The Real Rights of Man. Political Economies for the Working Class 1775–1850. London and Sterling, VA: Pluto Press.Google Scholar
  29. Trevelyan, G.M. 1922. British History in the Nineteenth Century and After (1782–1919). London, New York, and Toronto: Longman.Google Scholar
  30. Wallas, G. 1898. The Life of Francis Place, 1771–1854. London, New York, and Bombay: Longman.Google Scholar
  31. Webb, S., and B. Webb. 1911 [1898]. The History of Trade Unionism. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  32. Willis, K. 1979. The Role in Parliament of the Economic Ideas of Adam Smith, 1776–1800. History of Political Economy 11 (4): 505–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human and Social ScienceUniversity of Naples—L’OrientaleNaplesItaly

Personalised recommendations