Abstract
In this paper we reconsider Adam Smith’s ethics, what he means by self-interest and the role this plays in the famous “invisible hand.” Our efforts focus in part on the misreading of “the invisible hand” by certain economists with a view to legitimizing their neoclassical economic paradigm. Through exegesis and by reference to notions that are developed in Smith’s two major works, we deconstruct Smith’s ideas of conscience, justice, self-interest, and the invisible hand. We amplify Smith’s insistence, through his notions of the virtues, that as human beings, and by analogy, organizations, we are intrinsically social, rather than selfish and or egoistically self-centered. Thus, we have responsibilities to and because of others. We conclude that such a managerialist preoccupation with shareholder value is challenged, if not completely refuted, by taking seriously the social character of Smith’s complex vision of commerce.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Note that Smith never uses the term “capitalism,” and he only uses the expression “laissez-faire” to refer to the views of the French Physiocrats.
References
Bourdieu, P. (2005). The social structures of the economy. Cambridge: Polity.
Brown, V. (1994). Adam Smith’s discourse: Canonicity, commerce and conscience. London: Routledge.
Buckle, H. T. (1861). History of civilization in England. New York: D. Appleton & Company.
Calcagno, P. (2013). Adam Smith week. The College of Charleston, The University of South Carolina. http://sb.cofc.edu/centers/publicchoice/adam-smith-week/index.php. Accessed 20 Feb 2012.
Chandler, A. D. (1977). The visible hand: The managerial revolution in American business. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Evensky, J. (2005). Adam Smith’s moral philosophy: A historical and contemporary perspective on markets, law, ethics and culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Firth, R. (1952). Ethical absolutism and the ideal observer. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 12(3), 317–345.
Forman-Barzilai, F. (2010). Adam Smith and the circles of sympathy: Cosmopolitanisma and moral theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, R. E., Harrison, J., Wicks, A., Parmar, B., & De Colle, S. (2010). Stakeholder theory: The state of the art. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, M. (1970). The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits. The New York Times Magazine, 33, 122–126.
Friedman, M. (2002). Capitalism and freedom (1962). London: The University of Chicago Press.
Friedman, M., & Friedman, R. (1980). Freedom to choose: A personal statement. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Grampp, W. D. (2000). What did Smith mean by the invisible hand? Journal of Political Economy, 108(3), 441–465.
Griswold, C. (1999). Adam Smith and the virtues of enlightenment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hardin, G. (1968). The tragedy of the commons. Science, 162(3859), 1243–1248.
Hees, M. (2006). Des dieux, des héros et des managers: ou de quelques malentendus. Bruxelles: Labor.
Hodgson, G. M. (2001). How economics forget history: The problem of historical specificity in social science. London: Routledge.
Jackson, I. (2005). The corporation: Transcripts. In M. Achbar, J. Abbott, & J. Bakan (Eds.). Metrodome. http://www.thecorporation.com. Accessed March 2012.
Jensen, M. (2002). Value maximization, stakeholder theory, and the corporate objective function. Business Ethics Quarterly, 12(2), 235–256.
Kennedy, G. (2009a). Adam Smith and the invisible hand: From metaphor to myth. Econ Journal Watch, 6(2), 239–263.
Kennedy, G. (2009b). A reply to Daniel Klein on Adam Smith and the invisible hand. Econ Journal Watch, 6(3), 374–388.
Klein. (2009). In Adam Smith’s hands. Econ Journal Watch, 6(2), 264–279.
Korhonen, J. (2002). The dominant economics paradigm and corporate social responsibility. Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental Management, 9(1), 67–80.
Lin-Hi, N., & Blumberg, I. (2012). The link between self- and societal interests in theory and practice. European Management Review, 9, 19–30.
Nozick, R. (1977). Anarchy, state and utopia. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Nozick, R. (1994). Invisible-hand explanations. The American Economic Review, 84(2), 314–318.
Rand, A. (1974). “Philosophy: who needs it?” Address to the Graduating Class of the United States Military Academy at West Point.
Raphael, D. D. (2007). The impartial spectator: Adam Smith’s moral philosophy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Roberts, J. (2003). The manufacture of corporate social responsibility: Constructing corporate sensibility. Organization, 10(2), 249–265.
Rothschild, E. (2001). Economic sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the enlightenment. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Sen, A. (1987). On ethics and economics. London: Blackwell.
Smith, A. (1976). The theory of moral sentiments. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. 1983a (1762). Essays on philosophical subjects (works and correspondence: Vol. 3). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Smith, A. 1983b (1762). Lectures on rhetoric and belles letters (works and correspondence: Vol. 4). Indianapolis, IN: Liberty Classics.
Smith, A. (1998). The wealth of nations. Oxford: Oxford Paperbacks.
Sternberg, E. (1999). Just business: Business ethics in action. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stigler, G. (1971). Smith’s travels on the ship of state. History of the Political Economy, 3, 265–277.
Tawney, R. H. (1998). Religion and the rise of capitalism. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
Werhane, P. (1989). Adam Smith and his legacy for modern capitalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Wight, J. (2007). The treatment of Smith’s invisible hand. The Journal of Economic Education, 38, 341–358.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bevan, D., Werhane, P. The Inexorable Sociality of Commerce: The Individual and Others in Adam Smith. J Bus Ethics 127, 327–335 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2042-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-013-2042-2