Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-ph5wq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-29T08:19:43.209Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

14 - Physiocracy and the politics of laissez-faire

from Part IV - Commerce, luxury, and political economy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2008

Mark Goldie
Affiliation:
Churchill College, Cambridge
Robert Wokler
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Get access

Summary

Physiocracy in its historical, intellectual, and political setting

Physiocracy, or ‘rule of nature’, was a largely, but not exclusively, French movement in political economy that prioritised agricultural productivity over manufacturing as the source of economic growth, and sought to move on from that analysis to provide a fresh model of the fiscal and administrative relationships that should operate between royal governments and the owners of property broadly defined. It exercised intermittent influence on French administrations between the 1760s and 1780s and furthermore attracted vehement supporters and opponents outside France, especially in Italy and Spain, but also as far afield as the United States and Bengal.

However, physiocracy has not habitually been associated with innovative political theory, or indeed with any coherent political theory at all. From the days of early commentators such as the Abbé Galiani, Adam Smith, and, later, Jean Baptiste Say, it became conventional to argue that French physiocracy was mistaken in its economics and inept in its politics, partial in its understanding of the mechanisms of wealth creation, and ineffective in making its case before both the tribunal of emerging French public opinion and across the shoals of court politics. The first part of this condemnation, though not perhaps the most important in the eyes of contemporaries, has been conventionally turned into a textbook account, conveniently summarised by Robert Heilbroner in the following terms:

The trouble with physiocracy was that it insisted that only the agricultural classes produced true ‘wealth’ and that the manufacturing and commercial classes merely manipulated it in a sterile way. Hence Quesnay’s system had but limited usefulness for practical policy. True it advocated a policy of laissez-faire – a radical departure for the times. But in denigrating the industrial side of life it flew against the sense of history, for the whole development of capitalism unmistakably pointed to the emergence of the industrial classes to a position of superiority over the landed classes. (Heilbroner 1961, p42)

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Delmas, B., Delmas, T., and Steiner, P., eds. (1995). La Diffusion internationale de la physiocratie (XVIIIe–XIXe) (Grenoble).Google Scholar
Fox-Genovese, E. (1976). The Origins of Physiocracy: Economic Revolution and Social Order in Eighteenth-Century France (Ithaca, NY).Google Scholar
Hont, I. (1983). ‘The “Rich Country – Poor Country” Debate in Scottish Classical Political Economy’, in Hont, and Ignatieff, 1983a. Repr. in Hont, 2005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, S. L. (1976). Bread, Politics and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XIV, 2 vols. (The Hague).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larrère, C. (1992). L’Invention de l’économie au XVIIIe siècle: du droit naturel à la physiocratie (Paris).Google Scholar
McNally, D. (1988). Political Economy and the Rise of Capitalism: A Reinterpretation (Berkeley).Google Scholar
Perrot, J. C. (1992). Une histoire intellectuelle de l’économie politique: XVII–XVIII siècle (Paris).Google Scholar
Ricuperati, G. (1987) ‘The “Veteres” against the “Moderni”: Paolo Mattia Doria and Giambattista Vico’, in Carpanetto, and Ricuperati, 1987.Google Scholar
Steiner, P. (1998). La ‘Science nouvelle’ de l’économie politique (Paris).Google Scholar
Venturi, F. (1969–90). Settecento riformatore: l’Italia dei lumi (1764–1790), 5 vols. in 7 (Turin).Google Scholar
Wahnbaeck, T. (2004). Luxury and Public Happiness: Political Economy in the Italian Enlightenment (Oxford).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whatmore, R. (2000a). Republicanism and the French Revolution: An Intellectual History of Jean-Baptiste Say’s Political Economy (Oxford).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×