Advertisement

Adam Smith and Disequilibrium Economic Theory

  • Takashi Negishi
  • Takashi Negishi
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Japanese Business and Economics book series (AJBE, volume 2)

Abstract

A great classic often has many different aspects that permit many different and mutually inconsistent interpretations by later scholars. The Wealth of Nations (WN) of Adam Smith is a good example of such a classic. Smith’s theory of natural prices has been interpreted and developed as an equilibrium theory by modern economic theorists. We shall try, however, to interpret Smith’s economic theory as disequilibrium theory. Of course, there already exist some disequilibrium approaches to Smith on the dynamic process of growth involving increasing returns to scale. We shall rather be concerned, however, with a disequilibrium approach to the problems of markets, that is, international trade, competition and division of labor, and a disequilibrium interpretation of what economists now refer to as “increasing returns to scale.” We shall start this disequilibrium analysis from a study of Smith’s theory of international trade. Smith explained international trade by the existence of disequilibrium, that is, surplus, and was criticized by Ricardo from the point of view of the equilibrium theory.

Keywords

Wealth of Nations Disequilibrium Theories Division of labor 

Notes

Acknowledgments

For comments or other forms of help, the author is grateful to the editor, referees and Professor Hiroji Nakamura. The usual caveat applies.

Bibliography

  1. Arrow, K. J. (2000). Increasing returns: historiographic issues and path dependence. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 7, 171–180.Google Scholar
  2. Babbage, C. (1835)[1832]. On the economy of machinery and manufactures. London: Charles Knight.Google Scholar
  3. Bloomfield, A. I. (1975). Adam Smith’s theory of international trade. In A. S. Skinner, and T. Wilson (Eds.), Essays on Adam Smith. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Chamberlin, E. H. (1948). The theory of monopolistic competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Elmslie, B. T. (1998). Vent for surplus. In H. D. Kurz, & N. Salvadori (Eds.), The Elgar companion to classical economics. L-Z, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  6. Haberler, G. (1959). International trade and economic development. Cairo: National Bank of Egypt.Google Scholar
  7. Hollander, S. (1973). The economics of Adam Smith. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
  8. Karayiannis, A. D. (1998). Supply-push and demand-pull factors of technological progress in the early decades of the 19th century (1800–1840). History of Economic Ideas, 6, 45–68.Google Scholar
  9. Komiya, R. (1990). The Japanese economy: Trade, industry and government. Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press.Google Scholar
  10. Kurz, H. D., & Salvadori, N. (2003). Theories of economic growth: old and new. In H. D. Kurz, & N. Salvadori (Eds.), The theory of economic growth, classical perspective. Gloucester: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  11. Lavezzi, A. (2003). Smith, Marshall and Young on division of labour and economic growth. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 10, 81–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mill, J. S. (1909)[1848]. Principles of political economy. London: Longmans, Green & Co.Google Scholar
  13. Myint, H. (1958). The “classical theory” of international trade and the underdeveloped countries. Economic Journal, 68, 317–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Myint, H. (1977). Adam Smith’s theory of international trade in the perspective of economic development. Economica, 44, 231–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Negishi, T. (1986). Thornton’s criticism of equilibrium theory and Mill. History of Political Economy, 18, 567–577.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Negishi, T. (1989). History of economic theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
  17. Negishi, T. (1993). A Smithian growth model and Malthus’ optimum propensity to save. European Journal of the History of Economic Thought, 1, 115–127.Google Scholar
  18. Negishi, T. (2000). Adam Smith’s division of labour and structural changes. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 11, 5–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pigou, A. C. (1932). The economics of welfare. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. Ricardo, D. (1951)[1817]. In P. Sraffa, (Ed.). On the principles of political economy and taxation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Richardson, G. B. (1975). Adam Smith on competition and increasing returns. In A. S. Skinner, & T. Wilson (Eds.), Essays on Adam Smith. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Robinson, J. (1933). Economics of imperfect competition. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Schumpeter, J. A. (1954). History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Smith, A. (1976)[1776]. In R. H. Campbell, & A. S. Skinner (Eds.), An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Sweezy, P. M. (1939). Demand under conditions of oligopoly. Journal of Political Economy, 47, 568–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sylos-Labini, P. (1976). Competition: the product markets. In T. Wilson, & A. S. Skinner (Eds.), The market and the state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Vassilakis, S. (1987). Increasing returns to scale. In J. Eatwell, M. Milgate, & P. Newman (Eds.), The new palgrave, vol. 2. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  28. Walras, L. (1954). Elements of pure economics (W. Jaffé, Trans.). Homewood: Irwin.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Japan 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takashi Negishi
    • 1
  • Takashi Negishi
    • 2
  1. 1.The Japan AcademyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.The University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations