I. INTRODUCTION
Economic knowledge is at the heart of political governance, but views differ on the extent to which it should be publicly accessible. It is sometimes described as confidential or difficult to acquire, something to which only a selected few should have access or could even understand. There was a lot of political discussion on the economy and the nature of economic knowledge in mid-eighteenth-century Sweden. The aim was to widen political participation in economic affairs, as several people stressed the need for all members of the Swedish Diet to be capable of discussing and evaluating economic policies. My aim in this paper is to analyze the work and ideas of Finnish-Swedish politician Anders Chydenius (1729–1803), as well as the actions leading to his dismissal from the Swedish Diet in 1766. He supported Sweden’s Freedom of the Press Act and contributed to the political discussion on Swedish economic policy during the turbulent times of the 1760s. I show how Chydenius’s work was motivated by dual targets: first, to provide accessible analyses of the workings of the economy, and second, to make these analyses widely available in society. The overall aim was to broaden public participation in economic affairs, a target that faced serious opposition even from Chydenius’s own Caps party.
The following discussion is situated at the intersection between freedom of speech and the dissemination of economic ideas, exemplifying the role of economic knowledge in social progress during the eighteenth century. Referring to the work and actions of Chydenius, I reveal how supporting free speech and trade liberalization went hand in hand. Following the implementation of the world’s first Freedom of the Press Act in 1766, Chydenius exercised his right to freedom from censorship by printing and distributing views on monetary policy that supported free trade. He wrote his pamphlets with the aim of widening readers’ interest in economic affairs, discussing the consequences of economics-related decisions for several social groups.
Aims such as developing, collecting, and discussing various types of scientific knowledge and expanding public political debate characterized the Enlightenment period (Israel Reference Israel2011; Nokkala and Miller Reference Nokkala, Miller, Nokkala and Miller2019, p. 14). The number of political pamphlets increased across Europe after the invention of mass printing, which had a tremendous impact on political conversational culture (Sher Reference Sher2010). Sweden’s 1766 Act promoting freedom of the press decreed that there should be no censorship and that all information should be open to the public and subject to political debate, the only exception being discussion on religious matters (Nordin Reference Nordin2023). Those people justifying the Act referred both to human rights and general improvement. Peter Forsskål, one of the early advocates of such freedoms, argued that access to knowledge enabled people to improve their own life conditions (Nokkala Reference Nokkala2012). Yet, as the case of Chydenius shows, this general target for economic improvement could lead to conflicts of interest among social groups.
The context here is Sweden during the Age of Liberty, a period that lasted from 1718 to 1772. The country had exercised territorial control over a large part of the Baltic region during the Great Power era in the seventeenth century, but this came to its end following the loss of territories as a consequence of the Great Northern War. The empire still included Finnish territories in the eighteenth century, but these were lost to Russia in 1809. The eastern part of the Swedish realm was generally less developed than its southern and western parts, there being less industry in the Finnish part and the towns were smaller (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 11). Only a few towns had so-called staple rights, which allowed them to ship directly abroad (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 6). In general, Sweden was characterized by wide economic inequalities across the country, much of the wealth being in the hands of Swedish aristocrats and leading merchants in Stockholm and Gothenburg, and the Finnish parts were economically much more underdeveloped (Winton Reference Winton, Bregnsbo, Ihalainen and Winton2011; Magnusson Reference Magnusson2000). Freedom of speech and printing were valued in particular by people living in the Finnish areas, who had limited means in terms of participating in political decision-making and hearing about recent political decisions (Manninen Reference Manninen2006).
Anders Chydenius was a clergyman and a politician who belonged to the Caps party, and came from the Finnish part of the Swedish realm. He specialized in economic policy and published several pamphlets on economic topics in 1765 and 1766. (Chydenius’s collected works were published relatively recently, in the 2010s, and an English translation of his selected works was published in 2011; see Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011c.) He also contributed to the abolition of the “Bothnian trade prohibition” in 1765 (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 6). His most famous work, The National Gain (1765), offers an economic analysis that shares many similarities with the “invisible hand” argument, namely that everyone should have the opportunity to improve their own life circumstances, as this would lead to the maximization of total economic benefit. Chydenius was also one of the key figures promoting the Freedom of the Press Act (Manninen Reference Manninen2006). Very soon after the Act was passed, he published a pamphlet entitled A Remedy for the Country by Means of a Natural System of Finance (Rikets Hjelp, Genom en Naturlig Finance-System; henceforth A Remedy). The publication caused a great deal of public controversy in Sweden, igniting criticism even from Chydenius’s own party and its aristocratic leaders (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski, Jonasson and Hyttinen2011). My focus in this paper is on the publication process, and more specifically on how A Remedy could have led to Chydenius’s dismissal from the Diet.
Why was this publication so controversial? In addressing this question I combine analytical insights from the history of economic thought (Heckscher Reference Heckscher and Ohlin1954) with communication studies (Manninen Reference Manninen2006; Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1986; Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008). I suggest that the politically dangerous component lies in the combination of economic knowledge with communication. A Remedy promotes international trade, arguing that it was of fundamental importance for Sweden to have a monetary policy that supported the liberalization of trade, even if these actions were against the interests of the aristocrats and leading merchants in Gothenburg and Stockholm. Several Swedish writers, Pehr Niclas Christiernin in particular, had expressed such views—but what made Chydenius’s contribution unique was his aim to bring these arguments into public discussion.
A Remedy contains an early description of the quantity theory of money, with floating exchange rates, and it draws from ideas introduced by Christiernin (Heckscher Reference Heckscher and Ohlin1954). Christiernin formulated this quantity theory in 1760, based to some extent on David Hume’s formulations in his essay “Of Money” (1985, originally 1752) and expanding the scope of the analysis to cover an economy with floating rates of exchange (Persson and Siven Reference Persson, Siven and Jonung1993, p. 16; Vickers Reference Vickers1973). As Mats Persson and Claes-Henric Siven (1993, p. 16) wrote, “[H]is analysis anticipated a famous discussion in England half a century later, and it is possible that if his writings had been made available to the international economic community in some world language, the history of economics might have looked different in the nineteenth century.”
One of the main messages in Chydenius’s pamphlet is that decisions made on monetary policy will have unequal impacts on different social groups. He argues that politicians should make such decisions from the perspective of the whole national economy. He also emphasizes that the interests of the aristocratic class and lenders are not in accordance with the interests of borrowers and people receiving their income from international trade. From the perspective of the national economy, the interests of the latter should matter more than the interests of the former. Chydenius formulated this argument in a way that claimed apparent neutrality: natural laws and economic laws were very similar, a stance that could be attributed, in part, to the strong impact of Carl Linnaeus on Swedish intellectual discussion in the eighteenth century (Koerner Reference Koerner1999). He had helped to establish several university chairs in “practical economics,” including at Åbo University, where he received his master’s degree. There are significant differences between Linnaeus and Chydenius, however: Linnaeus was closely linked to the Hat party and its economic policy and, unlike Chydenius, supported cameralist policies (Koerner Reference Koerner1999, p. 166).
Even though Anders Chydenius was a very influential political character in Sweden during the 1760s, his ideas have not received much academic international attention from scholars focusing on economic thought. The works by Swedish historian Lars Magnusson constitute a rare exception to this trend. Magnusson (Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011b, Reference Magnusson2011c) analyzes the works and ideas of Chydenius in the context of Swedish economic history, including his political works. His approach is unique, particularly given that scholars in Finland and elsewhere have tended to approach Chydenius from dissimilar perspectives. Many of these scholars who are located in Sweden typically analyze Chydenius’s contributions by comparing his intellectual similarities and differences with those of other Swedish economics scholars (e.g., Heckscher Reference Heckscher and Ohlin1954; Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003). At the same time, Swedish writers do not usually address in detail the political dimension in Chydenius, including his contribution to Finnish politics and the economy. Several Finnish scholars, including Juha Manninen (Reference Manninen2006), Pentti Virrankoski (Reference Virrankoski1986), and Veikko Pietilä (Reference Pietilä2008), have emphasized Chydenius’s political contributions, such as to the Swedish Freedom of the Press Act, but most of these accounts do not cover his economic ideas in detail. I combine these two analytical accounts, emphasizing the interconnected nature of the development of economic thought and political ideas in Chydenius’s works.
I also stress the contested nature of economic knowledge and the role of vested interests in its production during the era of the Nordic Enlightenment. Economic knowledge differs from knowledge of the natural sciences in several ways, such as in its reactivity: when people make observations on the economy, they adjust their behavior accordingly, which has an impact on the society in question. One strong argument when the Freedom of the Press Act was being formulated was that access to knowledge would benefit all people, given its potential to generate gradual improvements throughout society (Manninen Reference Manninen2006). However, Chydenius reached the conclusion that the national economy would benefit the most if it supported the interests of traders and borrowers instead of those of aristocrats. This observation was not well received by aristocratic leaders in Stockholm in 1766. At the time Sweden was a country characterized by strong economic inequality (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2000).
Chydenius’s analysis accentuated the differences between the Swedish and Finnish parts of the realm. The Finnish part received a greater share of their income from trade-related activities. Powerful lobbies and special interests characterized Swedish politics at the time, making the distinction between private and public interests very vague (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2000, p. 103). The leaders of the Caps party did not follow the recommendations made by Chydenius and Christiernin, and instead decreased money supply by cutting off state loans (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski, Jonasson and Hyttinen2011). This had the effect they had predicted, taking Sweden into an economic downturn as industrialists were forced to sell their machinery to pay off debts. As a consequence, the Caps party lost the elections of 1769 (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski, Jonasson and Hyttinen2011).
The Enlightenment period was characterized by various initiatives of philosophers and scientists who wanted to spread knowledge widely in society (Habermas Reference Habermas1991). Aims to increase press freedom in mid-eighteenth-century Sweden were motivated by the desire to advance science, as well as to make politicians more accountable for their actions (Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008, p. 59). Nevertheless, there has been little research thus far on the Swedish-Finnish Enlightenment. One might hastily conclude from this that there were not many radical components in Finland at the time, even though both Chydenius and Forsskål were writing passionately about societal and economic conditions (Oittinen Reference Oittinen2012). This time period has been underanalyzed, and, in particular, there has been a lack of investigation regarding how economic knowledge and politics were connected to each other during the Nordic Enlightenment.
The paper continues as follows. Section II introduces Anders Chydenius and his main ideas. In section III I describe the publication process and the contents of A Remedy. Section IV analyzes the argumentation in the book, including Chydenius’s aim to liken the study of economics to the study of nature. I discuss the main findings in section V, and draw my conclusions in section VI.
II. ANDERS CHYDENIUS
The Swedish political environment in the mid-eighteenth century incorporated a new Swedish constitution drafted in 1719–20, following the death of Charles XII in 1718. It was influenced by the literature on contract and constitutional theory, including the work of Hugo Grotius and Algernon Sidney (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 6), and stated that the prince governed the empire, while the power of decision-making lay with Parliament. There were four estates within the parliamentary system: the nobility, the clergy, the burghers, and the peasants. The parties met every third year at the Diet, deciding separately on issues that had been presented to them by the government. The government had to abide by the decisions these four estates reached, meaning that the monarch had very little legislative power (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 6).
Two opposing interest groups comprising members from all four estates emerged within the parliamentary system in the 1730s: the Hats and the Caps. They were not political parties in the modern sense of the word but had distinct political programs and agendas, as well as varying socio-economic coverage. The Hats had more members of the nobility and wealthy burghers, including merchants in Stockholm, whereas the Caps attracted more men of lower status including peasants, clergymen, and burghers from small towns (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 7). The Hats pursued an aggressive interest-based trade policy from the 1730s onwards, implementing measures that favored major exporting merchants based mainly in Stockholm and Gothenburg, that protected the interests of iron miners, and that advocated the establishment of manufacturing companies (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Seppel and Tribe2017, p. 20). There was a split within the Caps party during the 1760s, producing the more radical “younger Caps” comprising lower-ranking members, and the more conservative “older Caps” dominated by noblemen (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 7).
Finnish clergyman Anders Chydenius (1729–1803) was one of the key thinkers of the Nordic Enlightenment era (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1986, Reference Virrankoski1997). He was among the most radical politicians among the Caps, belonging to the “younger Caps” wing and serving in the Swedish Diet in 1765–66. Hats policies had strictly regulated both industry and trade, with a view to protecting the nascent manufacturing industry from foreign competition (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Seppel and Tribe2017, p. 20), to which Chydenius was strongly opposed. He had an active role in introducing the Freedom of the Press Act, as well as in the decision to grant international trading rights to the Finnish coastal cities of Kokkola, Oulu, Pori. and Vaasa (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a).
Chydenius was a prolific writer during the Diet of 1765–66, when the Caps took power. His argumentative style was heavily influenced by the Cartesian and Wolffian tradition, both of which were popular schools of thought in mid-eighteenth-century Sweden. Scholars have also emphasized the impact of Samuel von Pufendorf on him, as they were both concerned about humanity and morality (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1997). Chydenius followed Swedish political and economic discussions very actively, and was an avid reader (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1997).
Developments in the natural sciences also had a strong influence on Chydenius’s thought. This centrality of nature and observations referring to it reflect the impact of Carl Linnaeus and his pupils in Sweden in the mid-eighteenth century. They had traveled widely across the world while collecting plant and species exhibits as well as technological knowledge about their usage. They also had practical motives driving their work, believing that people and nations could become more prosperous by making the best possible use of natural resources (Jonsson Reference Jonsson2010). When Chydenius was a student at the University of Åbo, one of his teachers, Professor of Economics Pehr Kalm, had just returned from an excursion to North America. Linnaeus encouraged his students to make oeconomia the central topic of interest in their foreign travels, hoping to develop a national economy that was self-sufficient, especially in the production of material resources (Koerner Reference Koerner1999, p. 148). Kalm published one of the first accounts of life in early American settlements in his book Resa till Norra Amerika (Travels into North America), which covers subjects such as vegetation and geography. One of his aims was to describe how the early American colonies had become wealthy very rapidly. He argued that their prosperity was attributable to their use of natural resources and technology, and to religious tolerance (Benson Reference Benson1937).
Although Chydenius lived his whole life in Sweden, many people in his circle were connected to international intellectual discussion. Carl-Gustav Scheffer, another Swedish discussant on economic policies, had absorbed ideas from France when he was in close contact with physiocrats such as the Comte de Mirabeau and François Quesnay, both advocates of “craft freedom” (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2000, p. 58). Linnaeus and his pupils had made the Swedish intellectual climate more internationally oriented (Wirta et al. Reference Wirta, Tikka, Hannula and Kananoja2023). Kalm was a good friend of Benjamin Franklin, sometimes staying at his house during his visits (Kallinen Reference Kallinen2024). Kalm’s description of the United States was also influential in Europe: Adam Smith drew from his findings in his analysis of American agricultural development, for example (Jonsson Reference Jonsson2010).
The writings of Chydenius are from a period that was characterized by an intellectual shift from a natural to a political economy (see Schabas Reference Schabas2005; Wennerlind Reference Wennerlind2022), and his work contains elements from both traditions. A typical view in Sweden of the 1760s was that the household government did not differ in significant ways from household-related management (Rydén Reference Rydén, Seppel and Tribe2017). This reflects the tradition of cameralism, according to which the task of the governor is to make the country flourish, grow, and increase its flow of income (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Seppel and Tribe2017, p. 25). It is a tradition that covers a diverse set of practices and ideas on state administration, and it was most influential in central Europe during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries (Nokkala and Miller Reference Nokkala, Miller, Nokkala and Miller2019, p. 1). The emphasis is on harmony between the individual and the state, with the state having a significant role in supporting general welfare and happiness (Raskov Reference Raskov, Nokkala and Miller2019, p. 274). The cameralist ethos in Sweden is visible in the works of Linnaeus and his pupils, who tested the exotic plants they collected to see which of them could also be cultivated in the Swedish environment (Leikola Reference Leikola2007; Koerner Reference Koerner1999). One of the best-known cameralist writers in Sweden was Anders Berch, who worked at Uppsala University and lectured on commerce, industry, and manufacturing. He published a book entitled Inledning til almänna hushållningen (An introduction to general householding), in which he points out that good and proper householding is the cornerstone of a country’s strength (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Seppel and Tribe2017, p. 31). Berch was keenly interested in agricultural innovation (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Seppel and Tribe2017, p. 31). He differed from the German cameralists on one major issue: he believed that the purpose of regulation was to serve the interests of the individual rather than those of the prince (Carlson Reference Carlson2017, p. 345).
Chydenius showed an interest in practical economic improvements in his early works, and submitted prizewinning entries to essay competitions launched by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. The subjects included questions about such things as improving the navigability of rivers, making soil more fertile, and inventing new carriages that could carry more weight. These topics resonate with the “utilism” of the Age of Liberty, which encouraged the spread of new, useful knowledge in many fields, including agriculture and the manufacturing industry (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011b).
Chydenius started to pay more attention to economic and political principles in the 1760s. His first text with such an emphasis was the “Causes of Enigration” (see Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011b). This was in response to the question posed by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences about why so many people were allegedly emigrating from Sweden. The topic attracted a lot of attention as it allowed people to criticize Sweden’s current political environment (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2012). Chydenius addressed the question from the perspective of poor peasants, arguing that these people had a right to happiness and the right to start a family. Those without economic resources to achieve this in Sweden were forced to move away. Chydenius did not believe in coercion. He argued that the right solution was to improve conditions in the country sufficiently to give these people an incentive to stay. His recommendations included granting free sailing rights for Finnish coastal cities and making it easier to start an enterprise (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011b). He was also of the opinion that many trade regulations had made the country weaker at the same time as halting its population growth (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011b). Although many of the policies he supported were in accordance with the interests of people living in Finland, especially in coastal areas, he argued that these freedoms would help to make Sweden wealthier and its citizens happier.
Chydenius addressed his most influential works to non-specialist audiences, in this respect resembling the pamphlet writers of continental Europe. However, his audience differed substantially from typical readers of economic pamphlets written in Great Britain and the Dutch Republic. There was a flourishing discussion on the economy in Great Britain at the beginning of the eighteenth century, to which merchants, tradesmen, and statesmen contributed. The literature typically addressed the Lords and Commons in Parliament in order to influence the government’s trade policy (Erikson Reference Erikson2021, pp. 101–102, 215). In comparison, the Swedish Diet consisted of representatives of the four estates, including peasants (bönder) and members from the Finnish part of the realm, indicating wide socio-economic coverage. The total size of the literate audience was not nearly as big as in Great Britain and the Dutch Republic, but the Swedish community had a very active and lively conversational culture on matters concerning the economy (Nokkala Reference Nokkala, Alimento and Fontana2021a).
Chydenius pointed out on several occasions that everyone affected by the workings of the economy should have an understanding of the basic principles that govern it. In eighteenth-century Sweden these included politicians and traders, and people affected by currency rates and prices. There is a marked difference here from the economic literature published in England at the same time, in which the typical aim was to offer arguments to the administrative elite and selected political decision-makers (Erikson Reference Erikson2021). Similarly, Adam Smith addressed The Wealth of Nations to people who worked or wanted to work in public administration (Liu Reference Liu2022). Chydenius’s writings and political work are, on the other hand, in accordance with the priorities and values of the Enlightenment, with its emphasis on general education (Skuncke and Tandefelt Reference Skuncke and Tandefelt2003; Langen Reference Langen, Nordin, Stjernfelt, Hemstad, Kaasa, Krefting and Nøding2023). This target of wide accessibility was shared by several of Chydenius’s contemporaries. Peter Forsskål and Anders Nordencrantz, for example, both advocated freedom of speech and were concerned about the economic development of Sweden (Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008, p. 61; Stapelbroek and Alimento Reference Stapelbroek and Alimento2014).
Chydenius wished to disseminate and debate his views widely in society, and he wrote in a style that generated a great amount of popular appeal. His overarching target was to convince his fellow politicians and the literate public about the benefits of various freedoms, including free trade and the free movement of ideas and people. In the words of Eli F. Heckscher (Reference Heckscher and Ohlin1954, p. 204), “As a stylist he has few if any equals in the history of Swedish social science. It is no exaggeration to say that he is the most captivating writer within that field ever to appear in Sweden, and that his works even today still vibrate with life and excitement.” Chydenius emphasized the importance of the public sphere: knowledge advances via public discussion. In this setting, knowledge should not be too complex, but the basic principles could and should be such that the educated public will understand them. Meanwhile, to carry out such discussion, it was important to have a culture, including practices, institutions, and traditions, that supported and valued public participation (Lindberg Reference Lindberg, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003).
Chydenius was a prolific writer when he was working in the Diet in 1765–66. He offers reasons for giving trading rights to Finnish coastal cities in Sailing Freedom (Wederläggning af de skäl, hwarmed man söker bestrida öster- och wästerbotniska samt wäster-norrländske städerne fri seglation); and in A Report on the Freedom of Writing and Printing (Riksens höglofl. ständers stora deputations tredje utskotts betänkande, angående skrif- och tryckfriheten) he argues that it would be beneficial for Swedish society to circulate knowledge on all matters, including political decisions and economic affairs. He further points out that access to this knowledge would improve the quality of public debate, while also enhancing societal progression. Freedom of the press also had practical benefits for the Finns, as it could make them better informed about political discussions and political decisions made in the capital (Manninen Reference Manninen2006). Both of these initiatives, international trading rights for Finnish coastal cities and the Freedom of the Press Act, were implemented in 1765–66.
The National Gain (Den Nationnale Winsten) is one of Chydenius’s best-known works, in which he offers an analysis of the basic principles governing the economy. The book addresses the question of how nations become prosperous: national profit weighs all enterprises and trade areas “on the same scales, making profit the true yardstick for deciding which of them should be preferred” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011g, p. 162). Nations aspiring to achieve the highest profit should focus on occupations that are the best paid. Several authors have emphasized the similarities between this work and Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations: Chydenius’s collected works in English are published under the title Anticipating the Wealth of the Nations, for example.
It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss the similarities and differences between Smith and Chydenius. This issue is connected to the more general question of the differences between the Scottish and the Nordic Enlightenment, including the divergent understandings of nature, the economy, and the natural order in these two intellectual traditions. In his works published in the 1760s, Chydenius draws mainly from French and German discussions, including the works of Charles-Louis de Secondat, baron de Montesquieu, and Pufendorf. Smith and Chydenius wrote for different types of audience and with different targets in mind. One major difference is that of size: Smith’s book offers a detailed view of the workings of the economy in two vast volumes with five books in total, whereas The National Gain comprises only thirty-three short sections. Moreover, even though Chydenius claimed that his views on the economy had universal validity, his reasons for publishing them were motivated by practical political aims, and they prioritized the interests of some societal groups over others. The argumentative strategy of publishing brief “thoughts,” “memorials,” and “reflections” was quite common in Swedish political-philosophical discussions during the Age of Liberty. Most of these works focused on Sweden and its contemporary policy issues, and were published in Swedish rather than in Latin. Thus, they were unlikely to travel beyond the country’s borders or to gain international fame: the most internationally acclaimed Swedish authors of the time were Linnaeus and Swedenborg, who both wrote in Latin and on matters other than politics (Lindberg Reference Lindberg, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003, p. 21).
III. A REMEDY FOR THE COUNTRY
Chydenius was a skillful writer, publishing several works that caused public controversy and debate. Among his most notorious publications was A Remedy for the Country, by Means of a Natural System of Finance (Rikets Hjelp, Genom en Naturlig Finance-System, 1766), which comprises a detailed analysis of Swedish monetary policy and criticizes the financial policy of the Caps party. The book has a political message, arguing that the Swedish Diet should not revalue the currency and pointing out that such a decision would have dissimilar impacts on different groups of people.
One controversial aspect was Chydenius’s portrayal of the relationship between the economy and the political sphere, and his assertion that information about the economy should be accessible to a wider group of people. In promoting equitable access to credit and the fair treatment of debtors, Chydenius was emphasizing the moral dimensions of economic policies, calling for a monetary system that recognized the interests of several societal actors and groups. As did several of his contemporaries, he supported free speech, suggesting that its application should extend to the context of monetary policy. He promoted the view that decisions concerning monetary policy should consider the interests of traders and borrowers, thereby challenging the political and economic positions of the aristocratic class. This conflict culminated around the question of whether Sweden should revalue its currency.
Monetary and fiscal policy were governed in dissimilar ways in 1760s Sweden. Taxation was determined within the Riksdag, by a committee representing all four estates. It also had the power to set new temporary taxes (Hendrickson Reference Hendrickson2020, p. 317). Meanwhile, government expenditure, monetary policy, and foreign policy were secret state matters, and were decided by a majority vote in the Secret Committee. This committee consisted of 100 Riksdag members, half of which were of the nobility, and the other half included burghers and the clergy: peasants had no representation (Hendrickson Reference Hendrickson2020, p. 317).
Several coin currencies as well as paper money circulated in Sweden in 1766 (Edvinsson Reference Edvinsson, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2010, p. 182). The value of paper notes fell to a very low level in the early 1760s, following an increase in the State’s borrowing during the Seven Years War from 1756 to 1763. The riksdaler occasionally stood at over 100 copper marks (kopparmynt) (Edvinsson Reference Edvinsson, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2010, p. 180; Edvinsson and Ögren Reference Edvinsson, Ögren, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2014, p. 255). This fall in prices was also visible in the fall in foreign exchange rates (Eagly Reference Eagly1969), expressed via the price of other European currencies in Swedish silvermynt or kopparmynt and determined by the market price of bills of exchange. These were orders written by the drawer to the drawee to pay money to the payee; they had different terms of maturity and were used widely in international trade (Edvinsson Reference Edvinsson, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2010; Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003). The most frequently quoted exchange rates in eighteenth-century Sweden are based on the valuations made in the Hamburg and Amsterdam markets (Edvinsson Reference Edvinsson, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2010).
The Caps party came into power in 1765. The parliamentary meeting began an inquiry into the government budget and the management of the Bank of Sweden (Riksens Ständers Bank, Riksbank) from 1738 onwards, thereby making the situation of the Bank and the Crown more widely known (Fregert and Jonung Reference Fregert and Jonung1996, p. 455). The Caps were very critical of the mercantilist policies of the Hats, arguing that their note issuance had caused inflation (Hendrickson Reference Hendrickson2020, p. 317). The majority wanted to reinstate the riksdaler’s former parity (thirty-six copper marks or three silver daler) in 1766 (Edvinsson Reference Edvinsson, Edvinsson, Jacobson and Waldenström2010, p. 180), but Chydenius was against this proposal.
Chydenius wrote his response, A Remedy, after studying the analysis conducted by Christiernin (Heckscher Reference Heckscher and Ohlin1954). Christiernin had studied Richard Cantillon, David Hume, John Locke, and other international writers, and in 1761 he presented a version of the quantity theory of money with floating exchange rates in Sweden (Lönnroth Reference Lönnroth and Sandelin1991, pp. 21–22; Persson and Siven Reference Persson, Siven and Jonung1993). He was a professor of economics in Uppsala, writing about monetary policy, but he was not a politician. In his analysis he recognized the social outcomes of economic redistribution caused by inflation and deflation, pointing out that higher exchange rates benefitted all those who had exportable goods to sell while putting buyers of foreign goods and those contributing only to domestic work in a poorer position (Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003). He acknowledged that deflation would cause major problems among people with debts, including landowners, merchants, mill owners, and manufacturers (Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003). Christiernin and Chydenius both supported entrepreneurial interests: the former focused on the outcomes of economic policies for iron manufacturing and the iron trade, whereas Chydenius was more concerned with Finnish traders (Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003).
Chydenius published A Remedy soon after the Freedom of the Press Act was implemented. The book consists of thirty-nine short chapters, comprising in total fifty-four pages. It starts with a description of the economic and political challenges faced by Sweden, criticizing contemporary fiscal policies for limiting economic growth. The author then introduces the notion of “a natural system of finance,” drawing parallels between the laws of nature and laws governing economic interactions. Here, he also discusses his key ideas on free trade, the dangers of monopolies, and the benefits of competition. Next, he delves into the principles of fair and effective taxation, advocating a simplified tax code. Lastly, he criticizes government intervention, using empirical evidence and logical reasoning to argue that less intervention leads to more productivity and higher national wealth. He is against the revaluation of the Swedish currency, arguing that capitalists would reap the greatest benefits from this arrangement. Meanwhile, traders and borrowers would see the real value of their loans rising, with disastrous consequences.
A Remedy was printed in Lars Salvius’s bookshop in May 1766. Salvius was also personally interested in joining the contemporary economic discussion, and kept a notably large library on this topic (Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003; Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, Reference Magnusson2011c). The booklet sold over 600 copies during the two days following its publication, and Chydenius distributed copies free of charge to all members of the Caps party (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2011c). He describes the publication and the reception of the pamphlet vividly in his autobiography:
Salvius was given the manuscript and continued day and night with the printing that had begun earlier, and in no time at all the banned item was in everyone’s hands; gentlemen bought 40, 50 or up to 100 copies at a time and sent them to the provinces. I will never forget Permanent Secretary von Oelreich’s description of the members of the Joint Banking Committee two days after it had appeared: They curse, he said, and they read. (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011d, pp. 341–342)
However, the excitement did not last long. Two days later, Chydenius wrote that “the tide [had] turned and the ruling party directed all their weapons against me as a seditious and perfidious man” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011d, p. 342). He was summoned for interrogation by the Secret Committee, and was soon voted out of the Estate. There was even the possibility that something worse could happen: “I was threatened with arrest or even worse and was advised to escape, but I remained in Stockholm for five weeks without anyone laying a finger on me, and finally went to see the Speaker of the Nobles and asked whether there was any objection to my returning home” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011d, p. 342).
An official statement was issued that Chydenius had offended the Diet, and he had to return home to Ostrobothnia (Magnusson Reference Magnusson2011c). Nevertheless, his work provoked an onslaught of counterattacks in public forums, and his opinions became better known to the public than Christiernin’s more theoretical pamphlets (Lönnroth Reference Lönnroth and Sandelin1991, p. 25). The Caps party did not follow these recommendations, and revalued the currency. This decision had the effects Christiernin and Chydenius had warned of, leading to a 5% decline in real GDP per capita over the next three years (Hendrickson Reference Hendrickson2020, p. 318). The aftermath led to the Caps losing power in the elections of 1769 (Roberts Reference Roberts1986; Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski, Jonasson and Hyttinen2011).
Chydenius based his work on the assumption that there should be nothing secret in monetary policy, and that everyone should have access to knowledge about prices and coinage. He argues that the economy and the system of finance followed a few simple principles, and that many people had the capacity to understand them: “The more simply one can present a matter, the better. I shall try to make the truth visible without glasses and therefore first describe the correct and simple basis for a system of finance” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 170).
He also argues that the Riksbank should follow a monetary policy that supported the needs of loan takers. Like Christiernin, he was against the revaluation of the Swedish currency, insisting that there was nothing essentially wrong with inflation, which had increased the amount of exports and decreased the amount of imports, thereby enhancing overall economic productivity (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski, Jonasson and Hyttinen2011, p. 354). This defense of inflation challenged the position of the aristocratic class and people who received their pay as a fixed sum from the government.
Chydenius further points out that everyone has the right, “according to the laws of nature and of Sweden,” to trade, referring to a natural financial system whereby “everyone should be entitled to receive for a negotiable commodity a cash payment corresponding to it in value and that no one should be importuned to be satisfied with a mere stamp or illusions” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 201). Furthermore, traders should receive appropriate payment for their goods, and should not be tricked into accepting too low a price for their services. This view was against the secretive monetary policy, challenging one of the principles of cameralism to administer the sovereign’s finances via a collegial body that met in secret councils (Nokkala Reference Nokkala2021b, p. 484).
Chydenius (Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 173) suggested that traders would be tricked less easily if they had knowledge about the metallic value of different coins. He argued further that everyone had the right to know the value of coinage and its metal content in the coinage in circulation. Here, his argument shares similarities with later cameralist thinking about the natural rights of all people, emphasizing that human beings were the best judges of their own interests and that free trade was one of the most efficient ways of supporting the common good (Nokkala Reference Nokkala2021b, p. 486). He said rulers should not be in a position that allowed them to change secretively the contents of coinage. In particular, governmental self-interest should be limited to enable international trade to flourish:
Such confusion infallibly stems from a certain kind of governmental self-interest, which has then been adopted everywhere and has in recent times been regarded as one of the most secret maxims of state by means of which either rulers or certain individuals in the state have sought to gain possession of the property of their fellow men. (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 175)
Recognizing the fact that monetary policies have a deep impact on society, in one interesting passage Chydenius analyzes the actions of the Riksbank when it started to grant bank loans against iron, property, and shares. This led to an economic crisis when the Bank could not meet such demands with coins. He argues that it should have immediately been sued by the note holder and legally obliged to honor its commitments, and that by not allowing this possibility, the institution was exercising despotic power:
To issue banknotes at will on the basis of a fluctuating tale-value; to keep the administration secret and not be responsible to any court in the world for one’s promissory notes, surely amounts to the greatest power of which it has hitherto been possible to conceive, which despots have been unable to exercise more extensively, and which has never lasted. (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 181)
Chydenius recognizes here that the Bank has extensive economic power: bad decisions regarding monetary policy could lead to people losing their homes and all their property, and thus it is important to follow a well-thought-out monetary policy (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 181).
The question remains concerning whose interests monetary policy should serve. Chydenius promoted international trade, but he was not interested solely in traders’ rights. He emphasizes the position of poor people in his other works. In particular, in The Causes of Immigration he analyzes the potential impact of revaluation on borrowers and lenders: for borrowers it would mean a significant increase in the real value of their loans. He describes the negative consequences of a revaluation policy for manufacturers, merchants, ironmasters, farmers, craftsmen, and poor people: “While the exchange rate was rising, it mostly affected the capitalists; but they also had the strength to absorb the blow, whereas on the contrary now, when the rate is to be forced down, it is the poor producer in the state that is affected, and with him the essential strength of the state” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 194).
Chydenius refers to the exchange rate as “rising,” but in contemporary usage it would be understand to mean “falling,” and vice versa. His argument is that to make the country stronger, it would be of the utmost importance also to consider the interests of borrowers, and not just of the early capitalists. Such a viewpoint was in accordance with his target of broadening the public sphere and political decision-making on economic matters.
As he states in his analysis, one of the major targets of the bank was to ensure that many people were able to take on loans: “All productive occupations need loans, and how few are not those producers who can do without them?” (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 195). He describes at length the amount of time different branches of industry need before becoming debt-free, thereby highlighting the fact that if the economy is to grow, borrowers must be given security.
This emphasis on borrowers combines two central elements in Chydenius’s thinking. He analyzed national productivity in his other major work, The National Gain, emphasizing the importance of establishing economic policies that support individual productivity. In A Remedy he considers the financial conditions that could make people more productive, concluding that ordinary people should be able to borrow money, and that the country should thus implement financial policies that increase long-term stability. In combination, The National Gain and A Remedy provide an early account of how philosophical and economic ideas could support economic development.
IV. ARE THERE ANY ALTERNATIVES? CLAIMS OF NEUTRALITY
One interesting aspect in Chydenius’s work is the way he balances neutral observation and political engagement. On several occasions he presents himself as a detached observer, arguing that he did not have any partisan interests, and was rather analyzing the economy and its workings as if it were similar to the domain of natural sciences. This similarity between economic and natural laws is also visible in the title of A Remedy, with its reference to a “natural system of finance.”
Chydenius was a clergyman, which may explain, in part, his claim to be a politically neutral observer. Nordic clergymen of the eighteenth century were typically enthusiastic supporters of useful natural science (Moira Ryan Reference Moira Ryan2023). Chydenius wanted to emphasize in his economic works that he had no immediate interest in any company, or any reason to support one monetary policy over another (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 183). This was obviously a rhetorical strategy, but it does set him apart from several of his contemporaries. Many authors in Sweden writing about the Swedish economy had practically oriented interests. Lars Salvius and Christopher Polhem were both in favor of supporting the iron industry, for example, and they criticized trade regulations because of their harmful impact on it (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 211n5). Similarly, many economics-oriented pamphleteers situated in the United Kingdom, France, and the Netherlands discussed trade policy while also representing the interests of big organizations such as the East India Company (Erikson Reference Erikson2021). If there were persons whose interests Chydenius claimed to be representing, they were small traders, farmers, manufacturers, and people who did not belong to guilds. Most of his contributions to later Finnish discussions reflect a “national” rather than a “partisan” perspective (Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008). The policies he advocated, including free international trading rights for Finnish coastal cities, supported Finland’s economic development. Yet, he saw no clash between Swedish and Finnish economic interests here: what was best for the Finnish part of the Swedish realm was also best for Sweden.
This claim of neutrality also goes hand in hand with Chydenius’s view that a large group of people in the Swedish Diet should make decisions concerning monetary policy, instead of selected people from the administrative and political elite (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 209). This stance could explain why he wanted to distribute his work on the financial system to all members of his own party. He believed that economic knowledge would keep people informed about the consequences of decisions concerning monetary policy. Given people’s various backgrounds and training, such a work should not be too dense or difficult to access. Luckily, the universal economic principles Christiernin set out were simple enough to be used in such argumentation. This type of knowledge marks a difference from the cameralist tradition, which promoted professional administrative training (see Nokkala Reference Nokkala2021b, pp. 483–484).
In this context, one of the targets of public discussion was to arrive at a common understanding of the economic problem at hand as well as its ideal solution. This is visible in the essay competitions launched by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, for example, which offered rewards to those who gave the best answers to the questions they set. Chydenius seemed to believe that the validity of scientific ideas was commonly discussed and decided in public forums, a view that was shared by several of his contemporaries including Forsskål (Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008, p. 63). In the Swedish context, however, most of these ideas and problems were practically oriented. This corresponds to the views expressed by Bertil Ohlin (Reference Ohlin1959, p. 4), describing economic analysis in the 1760s as a “not scientifically interesting analysis of political economy questions, but a discussion of current politics concerning practical economic problems.” This analysis aims to disconnect scientific and practical discussion, even though on economic matters there is typically an ongoing relationship between the two.
All in all, Chydenius’s argument in A Remedy analyzes monetary policy as if there were only one rational course of action to be taken: make decisions that discard protectionism and support international trade. From the perspective of democratic decision-making, this downplays the role of political conflicts and the clashing interests among different social groups.
V. GRADUAL IMPROVEMENTS OR SOMETHING MORE?
Adriana Luna-Fabritius et al. (Reference Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel, Tribe, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023) argued recently that one of the core ideas in Early Modern Europe was that of “improvement.” They point out that the aim of several scholars at the time was to generate knowledge that supported gradual reforms rather than to bring about full-scale reform and progressive change. A major difference between reform and improvement is that the latter does not presuppose a powerful state administration to design and execute change. Changes rather occur as a continuous process, based on no particular conception of a desired future state (Luna-Fabritius et al. Reference Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel, Tribe, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023, p. 7). A similar emphasis is also noticeable in Chydenius’s economic analysis in which he underlines the role of individual actors, stressing the point that they should have freedom in making their own decisions and advancing their own personal gain. He shared with other eighteenth-century thinkers the belief that the target of good domestic government was the happiness of the population and the provision of material welfare among the ruler’s subjects (see, e.g., Luna-Fabritius et al. Reference Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel, Tribe, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023, p. 7; Koerner Reference Koerner1999).
Economic matters in the 1760s tended to be discussed in public rather than in academic forums (see Tribe Reference Tribe2021). Many works were published anonymously, implying that the goal of improvements was more important than establishing one’s name or advancing one’s career (Seppel Reference Seppel, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023, p. 45). The role of vested interests and values here is particularly interesting. Many earlier discussions on improvement in the seventeenth century focused on the spheres of science and education, describing potential improvements in astronomy, medicine, linguistics, poetry, arts, music, and the education of children (Seppel Reference Seppel, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023, p. 47). Political stakes and interests were not as high in these areas as in matters of economic and financial policy. Practical solutions aimed at improvement did not call for radical reorganization but rather investigated the possibility of finding better solutions for everyone (Seppel Reference Seppel, Luna-Fabritius, Nokkala, Seppel and Tribe2023, p. 30). A Remedy also presents such a view, as Chydenius argues in it that the national economy benefits most if the country’s financial policy supports actions that increase international trade and loan taking. However, this target was not in accordance with the interests of everyone. The book called for more political participation, stressing that people from different social groups should have access to economic information and be able to formulate their opinions via public discussion (Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008). Views such as this set limits on improvement discourse, which did not fully recognize the consequences of any clashes of interest among diverse social groups.
A Remedy is also interesting from the perspective of science and the development of scientific thought. Obviously, there was not yet a recognized discipline of economics in the 1760s, but Chydenius’s efforts to understand and analyze the economy shared similarities with a scientific ethos. His intent was to describe a few simple principles and to discuss his ideas in public forums, arguing that science advanced best if it was publicly debated and challenged (Chydenius Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011e, Reference Chydenius, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011f). This further reflects a scientific ethos, especially given Chydenius’s claim that studies of the economy share similarities with analyses of nature. He also believed in the benefits of free trade, and advised people to implement liberalist policies. However, he did not discuss the reactivity of his statements, such as how his preferred policies would change actors’ positions and actions. He supported technological progression, suggesting that economic advancement would deliver beneficial outcomes for everyone.
Scholars of popular science have historically focused on the relationship between the natural sciences and the public, whereas the popularization of human sciences has received much less academic attention (Daum Reference Daum2009, p. 323). The publication process of A Remedy was motivated by the aim to make theoretical economic discussion—in this case, ideas formulated by Christiernin—more widely available to the public. This reflects the role of vested interests in the development of economic thought. Many other authors writing about economic matters in Sweden during the 1760s were at least partially motivated by economic interests (Herlitz Reference Herlitz, Skuncke and Tandefelt2003). Owners of small mines and manufacturing companies, for instance, had personal reasons for supporting analyses that defended global free trade (Nokkala Reference Nokkala, Alimento and Fontana2021a; Kuisma Reference Kuisma2024). Also, the Freedom of the Press Act benefitted some social groups more than others, including book publishers such as Lars Salvius.
Another relevant aspect of Chydenius’s political argumentation concerns his claims of universalism, namely that there are some universal economic rights and laws. This stance reflected typical views expressed during the Enlightenment emphasizing the natural rights of all men (Nokkala Reference Nokkala2021b; Robertson Reference Robertson2021). He states in The National Gain that all people are motivated by their search for personal gain, and in A Remedy that all people have a right to engage in trade and to have access to economic knowledge. These rights could affect political subjects and subjectivity: economic knowledge does not change the world upon its publication but only after it has been put into use. Its use involves informing, learning, applying, implementing, predicting, persuading, and many other activities undertaken by academic and non-academic agents (Mäki Reference Mäki, Karakostas and Dieks2013). Applied in this way, it has the capacity to modify the authors’ own beliefs and behavior (Mäki Reference Mäki, Karakostas and Dieks2013). Chydenius explicitly stated his hope that people would find his ideas useful when he printed 600 copies of A Remedy.
The policies Chydenius promoted supported the position of people who received their income from international trade. As I have pointed out, at the beginning of the 1760s the Swedish empire was characterized by wide economic inequalities and power differences across the country. The arguments advocated in A Remedy challenged the position of major merchants and aristocrats, aiming to increase the capacities of the lower social classes, including smaller traders, to participate in political and economic decision- making.
Chydenius claimed he had a neutral position, but at the same time the economic policies he promoted had a positive impact, particularly on economic development in the Finnish part of the Swedish realm. This could offer one explanation of why later academic discussion on Chydenius proceeded in several directions from the early nineteenth century onwards. When authors analyze his works against the economics-oriented publications of writers such as Christiernin, it is easy to see the similarities among them. However, from a more political perspective emphasizing his similarities with Finnish authors and politicians such as Forsskål, it seems more appropriate to underline Chydenius’s contributions to the economic and political development of Finland. He was largely forgotten in Sweden and Finland in the early nineteenth century following Russia’s invasion of Finland (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 53; Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1997). This lack of academic interest in Finland could be attributed to the conflict between Chydenius’s views and political priorities under Russian rule (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1997). Chydenius became an icon representing the search for a national identity in Finland in the mid-nineteenth century (Magnusson Reference Magnusson, Johansson, Hyttinen and Magnusson2011a, p. 53). However, interpreted from this perspective, the focus has been more strongly on his support for press freedom, trade liberalization, and political democracy rather than his economic arguments (Virrankoski Reference Virrankoski1997).
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Economic knowledge occupies a central position in political decision-making. Many eighteenth-century Enlightenment thinkers discussed topics related to trade and monetary policy. David Hume, for instance, criticized the overissuing of paper money and emphasized the need for a stable, metallic currency system (Hume Reference Hume and Miller1985, originally 1752). The Swedish discussion in the 1760s provides an interesting case through which to reflect on the role of economic knowledge in political decision-making and argumentation. I have shown in this paper that one of the first reactions to the implementation of press freedom in Sweden was an upsurge in economic discussion (see also Manninen Reference Manninen2006; Pietilä Reference Pietilä2008).
Economic policy making is never a politically neutral activity, and decisions on monetary policy have dissimilar impacts on different societal groups. Yet, many writers in the sphere of economics express the view that certain monetary policies promote the public good more effectively than others. In the view of Anders Chydenius, everyone had the capacity to understand the basic principles of monetary systems. This stance diverts from the cameralist tradition, which classifies economic knowledge as something that is managed by the administrative elite. Chydenius believed that a wide array of people should participate in decisions concerning monetary policy. He argued that the target of the financial system was to promote the security and enterprise of all productive occupations. These views were in accordance with the interests of groups engaged or willing to engage in international trade. They challenged existing political decision-making, putting the interests of aristocrats and lenders under threat.
This case invites investigation into the type of relationship that existed between economic knowledge and the public during the period of Nordic Enlightenment. Not only does economic knowledge describe the world as it is. When the information is made public, it can also change people’s behavior, thereby having a strong impact on society.
COMPETING INTERESTS
The author declares no competing interests exist.
Open access
