This was published as “Father of Economics” in the United States (From the book: “he was—and still is and will always be—a thinker of remarkable depth and power. He is rightly called the father of economics, conceptually because he was the first to put markets squarely at the centre of economic thought, and practically because there are few if any economists since Smith—including both Marx and Keynes—who do not stand in his intellectual debt.”). It's more obvious, but less accurate (“his political economy ranges far wider than economics alone, and he could with equal justice be considered one of the founding fathers of sociology.”) To wit:
“Like Burke, Adam Smith was at core a philosopher, but of a more theoretical stamp. He believed in the workings of providence, of harmony, of order. But for him human society—not divine revelation, rational intuition or the individual will—is the ultimate source of our moral life. His whole emphasis is on communication and community, on what free people have in common between them. In his great project, his Humean science of man, mutual recognition—working through sympathy and tempered by the impartial spectator—generates social and moral norms small and large that constantly evolve and proliferate, rise and fall, are superseded or survive. By this means Smith opens the door to a potentially unified understanding of a vast range of human activity, in all its glorious diversity. Premised as they are on free exchange, in commercial societies these norms demand the same basic things of us all, wherever and whoever we are: awareness of others, courtesy, open-mindedness, consideration, tolerance and respect. In the course of his life Smith applied this core set of ideas again and again, refining it as he went: from his early essays and work on rhetoric, through The Theory of Moral Sentiments and the unpublished, little-known but crucial Lectures on Jurisprudence to The Wealth of Nations. That is, he took it from the basis of communication itself to the foundation of moral psychology to the pursuit of scientific inquiry to the administration of justice to market exchange; and if more time had been permitted to him, he might have gone on to include artistic creation and politics too. Embedded in it all is a dynamic, future-oriented and ever-unfolding sense of human possibility.”
Lots of very interesting considerations and thoughts about this remarkable and still relevant XVIII century “natural philosopher”. Namely:
“(...) a degree of humility among those who exercise power, and a wider acceptance that success is often the result of where you start—of families, culture and capabilities—and what luck you have on the way. It means a recognition that achievement of almost any kind is dependent on the efforts of others and on the strength of society, not merely victory in some dog-eat-dog struggle in which only the fittest survive. It means a Smithian focus on human dignity and human capabilities, and on how a well-functioning society can help all its members to flourish in their lives. But it also involves a shared recognition that there is a space in every society that lies outside what is measurable or governed principally by law. That is the space of cultural values, of existing practices and habits, of reasonable social expectations, of norms of conduct, the space of what is ‘done’ and ‘not done’. (...) But a good society will find ways to defend that space of norms. Without it all that counts is law, and the dynamics of the marketplace, and these by themselves can never be enough. With it can come greater social trust, and the potential to strengthen the institutions and public standards that restrain crony capitalism. (...) Adam Smith himself belonged to no political party, and he is not the property of any one ideology or political movement. Many of his political views remain obscure. In eighteenth-century terms he combined a characteristically Scottish Enlightenment belief in the possibility of personal improvement with a (...) commitment to the idea of social progress. But he was no radical: he did not adopt key radical policies of the day, such as a universal male franchise or annual parliaments, and he avoided radical positions on such issues as militias, the American colonies and public debt. He rejected utopian thought and explanations from any supposed state of nature; he preferred the local to the global; he despised ‘faction and fanaticism’ in both politics and religion, and he excoriated the ‘the man of system’ who tries to control people and suppress human individuality and freedom. He repeatedly emphasized the importance of ‘slow and gradual’ change, and of reform over revolution; he reasoned more from cases than from first principles. He was realistic about the importance of the state, and about its weaknesses. As he wrote, ‘No government is quite perfect, but it is better to submit to some inconveniences than make attempts against it.’ In modern terms he is neither libertarian nor socialist nor social democrat, but probably on balance a moderate small-c conservative. Indeed, he and Burke can be read together as setting the terms for different but overlapping kinds of a humane and moderate conservatism.”
There is a compelling and very welcome emphasis on the remarkable era of the Scottish Enlightenment and the intellectual giants of the time: “Smith’s relationship with David Hume deserves special comment. Intellectually, these are two of the most remarkable men that ever lived.” (...) “From a strictly commercial perspective, Smith found himself eclipsed by his friend Edward Gibbon, whose The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, published the previous month, sold out almost immediately. Nevertheless, The Wealth of Nations did well.”
About the masterpiece: “The Wealth of Nations was published in London on 9 March 1776, in two rather expensive volumes and a print run of 500–750 copies.
The sheer range, length and brilliance of Smith’s work render any summary inadequate. But the full title of the book gives a flavour of its contents: An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. This is not an economic textbook, though it is full of analysis, lessons and information. Rather, it is a book about economic processes and economic development. Nations, it argues from a vast array of evidence, can be wealthy and prosperous, or poor and struggling. But national wealth is not merely circumstantial or divinely bequeathed, it is created by human hand. It is not a stock of currency or bullion, or indeed a stock of anything, but ‘the annual produce of the land and labour of any nation’.
Moreover, what wealth really amounts to, and the causes of it, can be studied: political economy can be used to evaluate policy choices, and such choices can create or destroy wealth. An important goal of The Wealth of Nations is not merely to understand but to shape human actions; and to shape both how policy choices are made, individually and collectively, and the very idea of political economy itself. It is a contribution to ‘the science of a legislator, whose deliberations ought to be governed by general principles which are always the same’. The book’s panoramic sweep extends in space from the subsistence economy of the Scottish highlands to the developed nations of Europe and colonial trade with the Indies, and in time from ancient civilizations to contemporary events. But nowhere, it would transpire, are the effects of bad policy-making better illustrated than in the discussion of America.”
Words from the man himself: “Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.” Amen!