POLITICAL ECONOMY AND FAMINES

From whichever side we may look at the Classical model of economics the same policy conclusion will emerge with regard to the question of the alleviation of ‘distress’. The economics of Adam Smith and his disciples stressed the economic development of nations, and their hero was the strong and self-reliant individual. He it was who made a nation rich. Anything therefore that undermined this crucial variable of economic development by weakening its strength and self-reliance had to be avoided. The main reason why a majority of the Classical economists objected to the poor laws was that they tended to encourage paupers to depend upon state charity. Poor laws, moreover, had to be financed by taxing the ‘haves’, which added one more burden to the hard working and prudent sections of society.

On the other hand, if we consider the Classical economists to have been solely concerned with the ‘allocative’ problem, the policy must be that the state should not interfere with the proper functioning of the market. According to them, the market was an efficient instrument for distributing goods. Hence any distribution of resources in favour of the ‘have-nots’ and against the ‘haves’ through state action would induce an element of inefficiency and result in reduced social welfare.