What do you think?
Rate this book
Adam Smith: Father of Economics
Adam Smith (1723-1790) is now widely regarded as the greatest economist of all time. But what he really thought, and the implications of his ideas, remain fiercely contested. Was he an eloquent advocate of capitalism and individual freedom? A prime mover of "market fundamentalism"? An apologist for human selfishness? Or something else entirely?
In the tradition of The Worldly Philosophers , Adam Smith dispels the myths and caricatures, and provides a far more complex portrait of the man. Offering a highly engaging account of Smith's life and times, political philosopher Jesse Norman explores his work as a whole and traces his influence over two centuries to the present day. Finally, he shows how a proper understanding of Smith can help us address the problems of modern capitalism. The Smith who emerges from this book is not only the greatest of all economists but a pioneering theorist of moral philosophy, culture, and society.
In the tradition of The Worldly Philosophers , Adam Smith dispels the myths and caricatures, and provides a far more complex portrait of the man. Offering a highly engaging account of Smith's life and times, political philosopher Jesse Norman explores his work as a whole and traces his influence over two centuries to the present day. Finally, he shows how a proper understanding of Smith can help us address the problems of modern capitalism. The Smith who emerges from this book is not only the greatest of all economists but a pioneering theorist of moral philosophy, culture, and society.
432 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2018
82 people are currently reading
550 people want to read
About the author
Jesse Norman
20 books33 followersJesse Norman, MP for Hereford and South Herefordshire, is a Senior Fellow at Policy Exchange, the most influential British conservative think tank based in London. He is widely regarded as one of the architects of New Conservatism, a political philosophy that stresses using traditionally conservative techniques and concepts in order to improve the general welfare of society.
Norman was educated at Eton College and Merton College, Oxford, graduating with a 2:2 in classics. He did further study at University College London, where he held an honorary research fellowship in philosophy and obtained a PhD. His books include The Achievement of Michael Oakeshott (ed), After Euclid and The Big Society: The Anatomy of the New Politics.
Norman was educated at Eton College and Merton College, Oxford, graduating with a 2:2 in classics. He did further study at University College London, where he held an honorary research fellowship in philosophy and obtained a PhD. His books include The Achievement of Michael Oakeshott (ed), After Euclid and The Big Society: The Anatomy of the New Politics.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews
February 3, 2020
Writing about Adam Smith in an intelligent way is tough. Besides the difficulties of wading through 18th Century language and lots of stories about sheep, there is a question whether you can understand Smith's two major works (The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments) independently. Should the 2000 pages (in my editions of WON and TMS) be read as one work in three volumes? I confess that unlike some other major volumes like the Federalist Papers, which I have read several times, I have only read WON and TMS once each, so if anything the Biography helped me rethink about the majesty of Smith's life's work.
The author clearly states that Smith based his theories on the benefits of exchange rather than on the concept of scarcity and supply/demand curves. James Buchanan, the Nobel winner in 1986, made that very point in a lecture at the University of San Diego on Public Choice Theory. Smith argues that no animal gets the idea of voluntary exchange but humans do. He clearly favors the 19th Century description of the field which Smith is often credited as the father as political economy not economics. (So do I!). And a good deal of the book works to correct the caricatures of Smith's ideas that have been fomented by both the left and the right. He does a good job at that also.
Jesse Norman's biography does an admirable job of describing Smith's life and times. (That is the first half of the book). Where he falls down is in trying to assess the influences that Smith's work has on the social sciences. Where I found the book wanting was in his discussions of technology and the need for additional regulation to control the new effects of technological domination. I am also skeptical of his description(s) of the positive role of trust busting in the first progressive era.
Smith compounded the problem of interpreting his thoughts because of a decision he made at the end of his life. He ordered his executors to destroy letters and manuscripts which were unfinished. He labored on the two books off and on for a couple of decades, but except for the lectures on Jurisprudence and a couple of other writings - the rest went up in flames. So modern readers are left to interpretations based on massive and complex volumes. I do not fault Norman for his interpretation of some of those ideas, applied to the current era, I simply disagree with his conclusions.
The biography added a lot to my understanding of Smith's thoughts. So in my opinion, it is well worth the read.
The author clearly states that Smith based his theories on the benefits of exchange rather than on the concept of scarcity and supply/demand curves. James Buchanan, the Nobel winner in 1986, made that very point in a lecture at the University of San Diego on Public Choice Theory. Smith argues that no animal gets the idea of voluntary exchange but humans do. He clearly favors the 19th Century description of the field which Smith is often credited as the father as political economy not economics. (So do I!). And a good deal of the book works to correct the caricatures of Smith's ideas that have been fomented by both the left and the right. He does a good job at that also.
Jesse Norman's biography does an admirable job of describing Smith's life and times. (That is the first half of the book). Where he falls down is in trying to assess the influences that Smith's work has on the social sciences. Where I found the book wanting was in his discussions of technology and the need for additional regulation to control the new effects of technological domination. I am also skeptical of his description(s) of the positive role of trust busting in the first progressive era.
Smith compounded the problem of interpreting his thoughts because of a decision he made at the end of his life. He ordered his executors to destroy letters and manuscripts which were unfinished. He labored on the two books off and on for a couple of decades, but except for the lectures on Jurisprudence and a couple of other writings - the rest went up in flames. So modern readers are left to interpretations based on massive and complex volumes. I do not fault Norman for his interpretation of some of those ideas, applied to the current era, I simply disagree with his conclusions.
The biography added a lot to my understanding of Smith's thoughts. So in my opinion, it is well worth the read.
April 18, 2019
A very thought provoking book which I enjoyed. While I also disagreed with about 10% of the author's arguments, he also pointed out several connections that hadn't occurred to me before.
Does anyone still read Wealth of Nations? I haven't, and as the author points out, most economists haven't either. On the other hand, Smith is the most important economist in history. This book does an excellent job of summarizing Smith's written works, including the Wealth of Nations, while also explaining and exploring the particular strengths and weaknesses of Smith's points. This summary in intertwined with a short biography of Smith, about whom I knew little.
The book then moves on to defending and clarifying Smith with regards to the many attacks on his basic ideas.
Finally, the author gives a very concise view of the history of the development of economics as a social science. In particular, he focuses on the promise and the limits of economics, the dangers of multinational corporations, and a failure to tie Smith's demand for morality to current economic teaching.
It's the sort of book I may read again in 10 years, just to help chart the development of my own thoughts on these matters.
Recommended. 4.5 Stars
Does anyone still read Wealth of Nations? I haven't, and as the author points out, most economists haven't either. On the other hand, Smith is the most important economist in history. This book does an excellent job of summarizing Smith's written works, including the Wealth of Nations, while also explaining and exploring the particular strengths and weaknesses of Smith's points. This summary in intertwined with a short biography of Smith, about whom I knew little.
The book then moves on to defending and clarifying Smith with regards to the many attacks on his basic ideas.
Finally, the author gives a very concise view of the history of the development of economics as a social science. In particular, he focuses on the promise and the limits of economics, the dangers of multinational corporations, and a failure to tie Smith's demand for morality to current economic teaching.
It's the sort of book I may read again in 10 years, just to help chart the development of my own thoughts on these matters.
Recommended. 4.5 Stars
October 11, 2018
The author is a philosopher not an economist and seems to not agree with Adam Smith’s theory of economics or free-market capitalism which allows a person to become as rich as his or her ability will provide. Also, when he tries to explain the cause of the events of the 2008 crisis in America, he completely misses the mark which was the mark-to-market pricing of entities like houses which lowered their real estate values on bank balance sheets because houses could not be marked to their real market value and traded instantly like company stocks. The crisis was over when this accounting rule was negated in March 2009 and the capital value of the US stock market started to recover.
February 2, 2019
Norman is a political philosopher and this book reflects that. It is a biography, an economic intro, a defense of Smith's writing, and a critique of modern economic policy. I wanted to read it because I am studying Enlightenment thought. Smith would be appalled at our current economic situation. He was a proponent for free markets guided by an "invisible hand". He realized the market had to be morally pure. We are currently far from what Smith imagined.
August 9, 2019
I'm giving this 4 stars, because I think the research and the writing deserve it. I however, quite hated this book. I think he's arguing against a particular audience that I don't understand and would likely not even bother to address, given their crazy thoughts.
It was really hard not to put out of my head the sentiments from the book Thinking Fast & Slow. The idea that you can know something, but somehow not integrate it into your actually knowledge. Norman read everything that is necessary, but he's SOOO ingrained in the biases of current economic speak that he can't take it to the next level. So painful to see someone so close, but still stay in the land of where it's easy and safe to have a discourse.....
His Audience & His Bias
His audience is specifically Economists who have not Read the talking heads of their field, but have simply started with what is given today. In this regard, he's done the requisit work of reading Smith and also Marshall. I'm going to assume he's also got Babbage under his belt, but possibly that's what he hasn't put together. Additionally, he's got the time line of these authors more or less correct in the context of who their audiences are and what they are arguing against.
What he's got wonderfully right
Chapter 6 goes through a ton of the myths about Smith and how economists got it all wrong. Anyone whose bothered to actually read Wealth of Nations comes away utterly confused relative to how the Economists present it. It is not a treatsize at all about the invisible hand, which is barely mentioned. In fact, it's rather boring for most of book 1, as he goes about like an accountant for chapters on end. But then, you realize that all of it is a wonderful argument against Merchantilism which is essential the idea that there is a zero sum game. This, my dear economists is the majority of the book. The idea that the world is not a zero sum game.
Also, he's got great stuff on the concepts of taxation... and that Smith wasn't into a more fair tax vs. exploitation of the poor.
Where he's got it almost right.
Norman spends a bit of time on this point. The idea that via specialization that there is a way for you and I to make more and thereby trade. He then talks about the fact that Smith was cognizant that one might abuse this. This is all in the Wealth of Nations. It is literally barely present in a few paragraphs of the depressingly worthless book by Smith On Moral Sentiments, but whatever.... He's got it right there.
Where it all goes terribly wrong
Oh man... he just misses it from here, b/c he fails to see HOW profound this commentary that you can make X and I can make Y and we can end up with more, not less really is. I mean, he gets that concept that trade is important, be he misses the profundity that abundance is a possibility. As a result, he then misses SOOOOO much.
For example, he talks about how Smith doesn't have a lot of math like economists of today. That's because Economics and even Political economics wasn't a field during Smith's time. Indeed, economics doesn't even pick up any math until Marshall. But the reason it's able to, is ONLY because the field takes a strong stance on the concept of Scarcity. BTW... that is the PRECISE opposite of what Smith is on about. How Norman misses that, I have no idea. Aggregate Supply and Aggregate demand, which is proposed by Marshall closer to the 1900s can ONLY exist if there is some concept of scarcity.
Norman doesn't directly talk about Aggregate supply and demand, but he does spend an entire chapter on Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). Without a concept of agg supply and demand there is no EMH. Hence, the whole book reads like someone who has just changed subjects. It's like sooo bizarre. It would be like saying.... Martin Luther King Jr believed that the way to take care of racism was non-violent protest. But let's talk about what guns he would use to counteract terrorism. Doesn't even make sense!!! That's how this book reads after chapter 7.
I mean, it pains me because it's super well-researched. The whole chapter on women and whether Smith was sexist. I re-read Wealth of Nations and also read Theory of Moral Sentiment, just to make sure i wasn't going crazy. The ideas here are simply a reflection of the times. No more no less. There is no real thought process related to women. We might as well ask how does Smith think about the rise of the Internet of Things (Iot). His opinion on that topic would be so irrelevant it wouldn't even matter.
In fact, the only reason it would matter is if you somehow thought the wealth of nations was a book about Invisible hand in the context of scarcity. That's actually false. His concept of Invisible hand is in the context of moral righteousness, i.e. good things happen if you just leave it alone. The concept of Invisible hand that we know and love today doesn't really evolve to a true concept of market clearing price until you get to Marshall, because you NEED a concept of aggregate supply and demand to create that. The closest you get in Wealth of nations is that things sell at a price. He's not even saying if the price is really low, it will always sell, or if the price is really high it will never sell. That's just not what that book is about.
Instead, the book is mostly about the idea that if I make apples and you make pears better, let's make too much and then sell it to each other. Nothing in that has to do with the exploitation of women. If anything, he would - given the times - more likely say, women are great at caring for children, men are crap. Let's let women specialize in it and compensate them for it. But then again, we're coming out of the Mercantilist period, so the concept of compensation and how you should think about it in civilized society is still new and weird. That is what he's working out in both Wealth of nations and the drivel that is Theory of Moral Sentiment. If Norman had made that argument, I would have been more able to follow him.
Moreover, the exploitation stuff, I mean.. this should been a discussion of WHAT Smith was talking to, specifically the Mercantilist period, which - at the end - resulted in a transfer of wealth from Aristocrat to rich Mercantilist. It was the first time people cared about the poor. And immediately in the early 1700s the idea that you paid rent at all (they didn't do it before that time) and that you earned a wage. This is all over Smith's stuff, specifically the crappy Moral Sentiment book. norman touches on it but doesn't use it as an argument when discussing modern context for Smith. Like again, my MLK example. It misses the point as a result and stops - quite frankly - a more interesting conversation, namely, since we started paying people instead of taking care of them and we've removed the idea that the rich are beholden to the poor, what does that mean to modern society. I mean, even Smith is talking in that context when he describes taxation. He's not arbitrarily making remarks against the rich but addressing a transformation in political system.
Finally, I can't even believe that I read Theory of Moral Sentiment just to make sure I understood Norman. So glad I'm a speed reader, because that work is only slightly better than an organized diary of one's thoughts from the late 1700s. Wonderful if you're a historian. Painful if you think it's a real theory of anything.... Stick with reading Wealth of Nations.
It was really hard not to put out of my head the sentiments from the book Thinking Fast & Slow. The idea that you can know something, but somehow not integrate it into your actually knowledge. Norman read everything that is necessary, but he's SOOO ingrained in the biases of current economic speak that he can't take it to the next level. So painful to see someone so close, but still stay in the land of where it's easy and safe to have a discourse.....
His Audience & His Bias
His audience is specifically Economists who have not Read the talking heads of their field, but have simply started with what is given today. In this regard, he's done the requisit work of reading Smith and also Marshall. I'm going to assume he's also got Babbage under his belt, but possibly that's what he hasn't put together. Additionally, he's got the time line of these authors more or less correct in the context of who their audiences are and what they are arguing against.
What he's got wonderfully right
Chapter 6 goes through a ton of the myths about Smith and how economists got it all wrong. Anyone whose bothered to actually read Wealth of Nations comes away utterly confused relative to how the Economists present it. It is not a treatsize at all about the invisible hand, which is barely mentioned. In fact, it's rather boring for most of book 1, as he goes about like an accountant for chapters on end. But then, you realize that all of it is a wonderful argument against Merchantilism which is essential the idea that there is a zero sum game. This, my dear economists is the majority of the book. The idea that the world is not a zero sum game.
Also, he's got great stuff on the concepts of taxation... and that Smith wasn't into a more fair tax vs. exploitation of the poor.
Where he's got it almost right.
Norman spends a bit of time on this point. The idea that via specialization that there is a way for you and I to make more and thereby trade. He then talks about the fact that Smith was cognizant that one might abuse this. This is all in the Wealth of Nations. It is literally barely present in a few paragraphs of the depressingly worthless book by Smith On Moral Sentiments, but whatever.... He's got it right there.
Where it all goes terribly wrong
Oh man... he just misses it from here, b/c he fails to see HOW profound this commentary that you can make X and I can make Y and we can end up with more, not less really is. I mean, he gets that concept that trade is important, be he misses the profundity that abundance is a possibility. As a result, he then misses SOOOOO much.
For example, he talks about how Smith doesn't have a lot of math like economists of today. That's because Economics and even Political economics wasn't a field during Smith's time. Indeed, economics doesn't even pick up any math until Marshall. But the reason it's able to, is ONLY because the field takes a strong stance on the concept of Scarcity. BTW... that is the PRECISE opposite of what Smith is on about. How Norman misses that, I have no idea. Aggregate Supply and Aggregate demand, which is proposed by Marshall closer to the 1900s can ONLY exist if there is some concept of scarcity.
Norman doesn't directly talk about Aggregate supply and demand, but he does spend an entire chapter on Efficient Market Hypothesis (EMH). Without a concept of agg supply and demand there is no EMH. Hence, the whole book reads like someone who has just changed subjects. It's like sooo bizarre. It would be like saying.... Martin Luther King Jr believed that the way to take care of racism was non-violent protest. But let's talk about what guns he would use to counteract terrorism. Doesn't even make sense!!! That's how this book reads after chapter 7.
I mean, it pains me because it's super well-researched. The whole chapter on women and whether Smith was sexist. I re-read Wealth of Nations and also read Theory of Moral Sentiment, just to make sure i wasn't going crazy. The ideas here are simply a reflection of the times. No more no less. There is no real thought process related to women. We might as well ask how does Smith think about the rise of the Internet of Things (Iot). His opinion on that topic would be so irrelevant it wouldn't even matter.
In fact, the only reason it would matter is if you somehow thought the wealth of nations was a book about Invisible hand in the context of scarcity. That's actually false. His concept of Invisible hand is in the context of moral righteousness, i.e. good things happen if you just leave it alone. The concept of Invisible hand that we know and love today doesn't really evolve to a true concept of market clearing price until you get to Marshall, because you NEED a concept of aggregate supply and demand to create that. The closest you get in Wealth of nations is that things sell at a price. He's not even saying if the price is really low, it will always sell, or if the price is really high it will never sell. That's just not what that book is about.
Instead, the book is mostly about the idea that if I make apples and you make pears better, let's make too much and then sell it to each other. Nothing in that has to do with the exploitation of women. If anything, he would - given the times - more likely say, women are great at caring for children, men are crap. Let's let women specialize in it and compensate them for it. But then again, we're coming out of the Mercantilist period, so the concept of compensation and how you should think about it in civilized society is still new and weird. That is what he's working out in both Wealth of nations and the drivel that is Theory of Moral Sentiment. If Norman had made that argument, I would have been more able to follow him.
Moreover, the exploitation stuff, I mean.. this should been a discussion of WHAT Smith was talking to, specifically the Mercantilist period, which - at the end - resulted in a transfer of wealth from Aristocrat to rich Mercantilist. It was the first time people cared about the poor. And immediately in the early 1700s the idea that you paid rent at all (they didn't do it before that time) and that you earned a wage. This is all over Smith's stuff, specifically the crappy Moral Sentiment book. norman touches on it but doesn't use it as an argument when discussing modern context for Smith. Like again, my MLK example. It misses the point as a result and stops - quite frankly - a more interesting conversation, namely, since we started paying people instead of taking care of them and we've removed the idea that the rich are beholden to the poor, what does that mean to modern society. I mean, even Smith is talking in that context when he describes taxation. He's not arbitrarily making remarks against the rich but addressing a transformation in political system.
Finally, I can't even believe that I read Theory of Moral Sentiment just to make sure I understood Norman. So glad I'm a speed reader, because that work is only slightly better than an organized diary of one's thoughts from the late 1700s. Wonderful if you're a historian. Painful if you think it's a real theory of anything.... Stick with reading Wealth of Nations.
Read
October 2, 20199/8/18 found it through the WSJ Saturday Review. Includes a lot of Economic History in addition to Adam Smith. It got a very strong review
‘Adam Smith: Father of Economics’ Review: Obvious, Simple and Wise https://www.wsj.com/articles/adam-smi...
10/2/19 It's worth the positive review. Too much emphasis is placed on The Invisible Hand as his main contribution and this book puts that in the perspective of Smith's body of work. If anything, the more important concept is that he didn't believe in unregulated markets and realized the imbalance of power that is innate in markets. The second part of the book is about contemporary issues. The first part is more of a biography of Smith. Both parts were good for me.
‘Adam Smith: Father of Economics’ Review: Obvious, Simple and Wise https://www.wsj.com/articles/adam-smi...
10/2/19 It's worth the positive review. Too much emphasis is placed on The Invisible Hand as his main contribution and this book puts that in the perspective of Smith's body of work. If anything, the more important concept is that he didn't believe in unregulated markets and realized the imbalance of power that is innate in markets. The second part of the book is about contemporary issues. The first part is more of a biography of Smith. Both parts were good for me.
November 4, 2025
In "Adam Smith: Father of Economics," Jesse Norman, a British politician and philosopher, offers a detailed and interpretive accou[]nt of the life and thought of Adam Smith, widely regarded as the father of modern economics. The book functions simultaneously as a biography, a critical review of Smith's intellectual contributions, and a platform for Norman's own political and philosophical views, particularly those aligned with the Big Society ideology, which underscores social interdependence over individual self-interest.
The first part of the book traces Smith's life from childhood through his academic career to his death. Norman places particular emphasis on Smith's lesser-known works, especially "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and his unpublished lectures on jurisprudence, arguing that these writings are essential to understanding Smith's broader intellectual project. According to Norman, Smith sought to develop a unified theory of human society, wherein moral sentiments and legal institutions play a more significant role than economic mechanisms. This portrayal challenges the common reduction of Smith to the isolated author of "The Wealth of Nations."
Norman contends that Smith's core insights center not on the mechanics of market forces, such as supply and demand, but on the deeply social nature of human behavior. He highlights Smith's view that moral standards arise from interpersonal interactions rather than divine command, and that economic activity is embedded within a broader social context. In doing so, Norman positions Smith as a thinker primarily concerned with the fabric of human society, rather than as a proponent of unbridled economic individualism.
The second part of the book shifts from biography to a critical engagement with the discipline of economics itself, using Smith's work as both a foundation and a counterpoint. Norman argues that contemporary economics has misappropriated Smith, reducing his legacy to a narrow vision of homo economicus—an overly rational, utility-maximizing agent. He calls for a redefinition of economics, one that embraces the full range of human interactions, including non-monetary interactions and beyond self-interest.
Despite earlier emphasis on Smith's broader oeuvre, Norman's critique largely centers on "The Wealth of Nations." He argues that this work has been misunderstood and misrepresented by later economists. Rather than endorsing selfishness as a social good, Smith recognized the importance of social norms, institutional frameworks, and non-economic values in fostering economic prosperity. Norman thus champions a "return to Smith"—a revival of his holistic view that integrates moral philosophy, legal theory, and economic practice.
In conclusion, "Adam Smith: Father of Economics" serves as a valuable introduction to Adam Smith's life and intellectual legacy. It is particularly accessible and helpful to readers seeking an entry point to economic theory. However, readers should approach the text with a critical eye, as Norman often blurs the line between historical exposition and his personal ideological interpretation. The book is not a neutral or comprehensive scholarly account, and should not be relied upon as a primary source for understanding Adam Smith's work. Nevertheless, it offers a thought-provoking reassessment that challenges conventional readings and invites renewed engagement with Smith's multifaceted ideas.
The first part of the book traces Smith's life from childhood through his academic career to his death. Norman places particular emphasis on Smith's lesser-known works, especially "The Theory of Moral Sentiments" and his unpublished lectures on jurisprudence, arguing that these writings are essential to understanding Smith's broader intellectual project. According to Norman, Smith sought to develop a unified theory of human society, wherein moral sentiments and legal institutions play a more significant role than economic mechanisms. This portrayal challenges the common reduction of Smith to the isolated author of "The Wealth of Nations."
Norman contends that Smith's core insights center not on the mechanics of market forces, such as supply and demand, but on the deeply social nature of human behavior. He highlights Smith's view that moral standards arise from interpersonal interactions rather than divine command, and that economic activity is embedded within a broader social context. In doing so, Norman positions Smith as a thinker primarily concerned with the fabric of human society, rather than as a proponent of unbridled economic individualism.
The second part of the book shifts from biography to a critical engagement with the discipline of economics itself, using Smith's work as both a foundation and a counterpoint. Norman argues that contemporary economics has misappropriated Smith, reducing his legacy to a narrow vision of homo economicus—an overly rational, utility-maximizing agent. He calls for a redefinition of economics, one that embraces the full range of human interactions, including non-monetary interactions and beyond self-interest.
Despite earlier emphasis on Smith's broader oeuvre, Norman's critique largely centers on "The Wealth of Nations." He argues that this work has been misunderstood and misrepresented by later economists. Rather than endorsing selfishness as a social good, Smith recognized the importance of social norms, institutional frameworks, and non-economic values in fostering economic prosperity. Norman thus champions a "return to Smith"—a revival of his holistic view that integrates moral philosophy, legal theory, and economic practice.
In conclusion, "Adam Smith: Father of Economics" serves as a valuable introduction to Adam Smith's life and intellectual legacy. It is particularly accessible and helpful to readers seeking an entry point to economic theory. However, readers should approach the text with a critical eye, as Norman often blurs the line between historical exposition and his personal ideological interpretation. The book is not a neutral or comprehensive scholarly account, and should not be relied upon as a primary source for understanding Adam Smith's work. Nevertheless, it offers a thought-provoking reassessment that challenges conventional readings and invites renewed engagement with Smith's multifaceted ideas.
November 10, 2021
I’m glad I read this book. It’s Economic 101 that Adam Smith was the “father of economics” but my textbooks never really went much beyond that. One of Norman’s key point’s is that everyone has injected their own perspective of what Adam Smith “thought”. It’s important to go back to the source and understand what Adam Smith really thought and said.
I liked that the book had three parts — a bit of a biography, an explanation of what his main intellectual contributions were (and were not) and finally how this thinking might be applied to the modern world. I found the first section a bit weak, but that is partly because of the lack of source material on Adam Smith. Norman draws a picture of what it was like to be born in Scotland in the early 1700’s, but it is a bit patchy.
The second part was my favorite. Norman was comfortable exploring themes related to both economics and philosophy. He drew on both the book and some of Adam Smith’s influences like David Hume. I found him quite compelling in challenging the caricatures of Adam Smith versus what he wrote. One could not help but be impressed by how many challenges in today’s society Adam Smith thought deeply about and addressed in 1776.
The last part on the relevance for today was good not great. It repeated a lot of the themes and even key thoughts from the second section. I think the second and third sections could have been merged.
For the next book I am actually keener on reading a general introduction to philosophy or perhaps a biography on David Hume versus Wealth of Nations. LIke a good book he leaves me with as many questions as answers.
I liked that the book had three parts — a bit of a biography, an explanation of what his main intellectual contributions were (and were not) and finally how this thinking might be applied to the modern world. I found the first section a bit weak, but that is partly because of the lack of source material on Adam Smith. Norman draws a picture of what it was like to be born in Scotland in the early 1700’s, but it is a bit patchy.
The second part was my favorite. Norman was comfortable exploring themes related to both economics and philosophy. He drew on both the book and some of Adam Smith’s influences like David Hume. I found him quite compelling in challenging the caricatures of Adam Smith versus what he wrote. One could not help but be impressed by how many challenges in today’s society Adam Smith thought deeply about and addressed in 1776.
The last part on the relevance for today was good not great. It repeated a lot of the themes and even key thoughts from the second section. I think the second and third sections could have been merged.
For the next book I am actually keener on reading a general introduction to philosophy or perhaps a biography on David Hume versus Wealth of Nations. LIke a good book he leaves me with as many questions as answers.
January 26, 2019
The fact that this wasn't written by an economist has little to no bearing on the quality of this book, the premise of which is to examine the works of Smith in their historical, biographical, and philosophical contexts. Probably the best quote from the book to explain this is on pg197 of my ereader copy, "Smith intended his two great works to be read alongside each other, and saw them as self-sufficient but deeply complementary and linked to other parts of a philosophically unified system. That system is built on the single idea of continuous and evolving mutual exchange: communicative exchange in language, exchange of esteem in moral and social psychology, market exchange in political economy."
Norman spends some time debunking those that would cherry-pick Smith's works. Overall, this is an excellent book that gave me some excellent information with which I can do further research.
Norman spends some time debunking those that would cherry-pick Smith's works. Overall, this is an excellent book that gave me some excellent information with which I can do further research.
December 10, 2018
I really shouldn’t have embarked on this book as I am totally unqualified to judge it, being woefully ignorant about economic theory. I should have paid more attention to the description – I thought it was a straightforward biography. Which, to an extent, it is, and that aspect of the book I did enjoy. But when it came to the description and analysis of Adam Smith’s thinking I was out of my depth. It appeared, nevertheless, to be an authoritative and well-researched tome and thus I feel fairly confident in rating it highly. Others certainly have.
September 24, 2020
Adam Smith created the field of “political economy” or economics as we now call it. His writing seems contemporary even though it is more than 200 years old. This book shows how his thoughts evolved, political economy was supposed to be a science like Newtonian physics; and how he was influenced by luminaries of the “Scottish Enlightenment” like Edmund Burke and David Hume.
The author brings Adam Smith’s ideas to current times and use them as an optic to analyze the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
The author brings Adam Smith’s ideas to current times and use them as an optic to analyze the 2008-2009 financial crisis.
November 19, 2018
The life & writings of the "Father of Economics". Adam Smith with refutations to those who like to claim him as an anti-regulatory ideologue. Also includes extensiive coverage of Smith's moral sentiments. One reservation, in criticizing other's interpretations of Smith, the author resorts ot certain interpretation himself. In this respect, I am reminded of dueling biblical quotations & interpretations.
September 19, 2018
Really disappointing.
Lots of snippets about Smith’s life and friends, but very weak discussions about his two seminal works. The author seems to be trying to dismiss Smith rather than focusing on the influence his writings have had and the number of his ideas that still ring true. Don’t read this book. Read Smith in the original. You will get a much better return on your time.
Lots of snippets about Smith’s life and friends, but very weak discussions about his two seminal works. The author seems to be trying to dismiss Smith rather than focusing on the influence his writings have had and the number of his ideas that still ring true. Don’t read this book. Read Smith in the original. You will get a much better return on your time.
January 1, 2020
Some historical nuggets, such as how smith was thinking and writing within the larger context of an emerging and broad science of human interactions. But both the history and analysis of ideas never really became engaging.
June 25, 2019
An excellent introduction to Hume with considerable balance
March 28, 2021
Excellent audiobook. The first third is biography, then gets into his writimgs.
August 14, 2021
Just OK
July 30, 2022
Insightful book about Adam Smith and his impact on economics.
June 21, 2024
This is an important book. Should be required reading by economists and social scientists.
May 11, 2019
This is an excellent biography and history of economics from 18th century. I learned heaps about how to do business including division of labour and buyer and seller social connection. It is very thorough and covers GFC.
February 11, 2021
Outstanding, in depth, introduction to Smith and his influence, narrated by an equally outstanding reader.
September 11, 2018
This book is not only a biography of Adam Smith, one of the greatest economists of all time, but it also provides insight and information on the economy and even on how Adam Smith's effects on sociology. Very fascinating read!
Displaying 1 - 23 of 23 reviews