Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa


  • Margaret Schabas (a1)

Mandeville and Hume advance similar framings for their political economy, using emergentist and proto-sociological lines of analysis. They are less aligned with liberalism (political, economic, or metaphysical) than mercantilism, insofar as they favor balance-of-trade arguments and urbanization. They are both methodological holists, not individualists. It is the group, not individual agents, that figures at the core of their thought.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

John Arbuthnot . 1710. “An Argument for Divine Providence, taken from the Constant Regularity Observed in the Births of Both Sexes.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 27 (325): 186190.

Filippo Cesarano . 1998. “Hume’s Specie-Flow Mechanism and Classical Monetary Theory: An Alternative Interpretation.” Journal of International Economics 45 (1): 173186.

Pierre Force . 2003. Self-Interest Before Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Michael Gill . 2000. “Hume’s Progressive View of Human Nature.” Hume Studies 26 (1): 87108.

M. M Goldsmith . 1988. “Regulating Anew the Moral and Political Sentiments of Mankind: Bernard Mandeville and the Scottish Enlightenment.” Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (4): 587606.

William D Grampp . 1952. “The Liberal Element in English Mercantilism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 66 (4): 465501.

E. J Hundert . 1994. The Enlightenment’s Fable: Bernard Mandeville and the Discovery of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lars Magnusson . 1994. Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language. London: Routledge.

David Raynor . 1980. “Hume’s Knowledge of Bayes’s Theorem.” Philosophical Studies 38: 105106.

Sophus A Reinert . 2011. Translating Empire: Emulation and the Origins of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nathan Rosenberg . 1963. “Mandeville and Laissez-Faire.” Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (2): 183196.

Margaret Schabas . 1995. “Parmenides and the Cliometricians.” In Daniel Little , ed., On the Reliability of Economic Models. Boston: Kluwer, 183202.

Margaret Schabas . 2005. The Natural Origins of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Margaret Schabas . 2007. “Groups versus Individuals in Hume’s Political Economy.” The Monist 90 (2): 200212.

Margaret Schabas . 2008. “Hume’s Monetary Thought Experiments.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 39 (3): 161169.

Margaret Schabas . 2014. “’Let Your Science be Human’: David Hume and the Honourable Merchant.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21 (6): 977990.

Carl Wennerlind . 2001. “The Link between David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature and His Fiduciary Theory of Money.” History of Political Economy 33 (1): 139160.

Carl Wennerlind . 2005. ‘David Hume’s Monetary Theory Revisited: Was He Really a Quantity Theorists and an Inflationist?” Journal of Political Economy 113 (1): 223237.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Journal of the History of Economic Thought
  • ISSN: 1053-8372
  • EISSN: 1469-9656
  • URL: /core/journals/journal-of-the-history-of-economic-thought
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 2
Total number of PDF views: 17 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 203 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 23rd June 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.