The New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics

2018 Edition
| Editors: Macmillan Publishers Ltd

Economic Harmony

  • Israel M. Kirzner
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-95189-5_51

Abstract

This term has been introduced frequently into economic discussion, and especially into discussions concerning the history of economic thought. Yet there seems to be a good deal of ambiguity as to what it is to mean. Moreover, there has developed considerable disagreement concerning the centrality of the ‘harmony’ idea to the development of economic thought, and similar disagreement concerning the extent to which the classical economists, in particular, are to be seen as harmony-theorists. We will return a little later to distinguish various different senses that have been attached to the term ‘harmony’ in economics. For each of these different senses, however, acceptance of the harmony thesis has been held to imply a favourable stance towards a policy of laissez-faire. It is thus not surprising that 18th-century precursors of the notion of harmony have been discovered in Cantillon and in Quesnay (Schumpeter 1954, p. 234). And we are not surprised to find some writers emphasizing the harmony ideas they see in the classical economists, especially in Adam Smith (Halévy 1901–4, p. 89; Heimann 1945, p. 65), while others vehemently question the unqualified identification of these writers with harmony theories (Robbins 1952, pp. 22–9; Samuels 1966, pp. 6–8; Sowell 1974, pp. 16f). It was in the middle of the 19th century that the best–known writings appeared concerning economic harmony. The term appeared in the title of two books by the American economist Henry C. Carey (Carey 1836, 1852). These works were followed by a general treatise stressing the same theme (Carey 1858–60). The term also appeared in the title of a book by the French economic writer Frédéric Bastiat (1850). For a (muted) defence of Bastiat against widespread 19th-century charges that his work in this respect was a crude plagiarism of Carey, see Teilhac (1936, pp. 100–113), who points to the inspiration that both Carey and Bastiat received from J.B. Say. Subsequent references to harmony theories in economics generally tended to be critical, as economists began to argue (from the latter decades of the 19th century into the 20th century) for greater state intervention in market economies on perceived grounds of economic efficiency or economic justice. During most of the 20th century economists, even when they have defended the efficiency and justice of markets, have generally not couched their arguments explicitly in terms of harmony theory. Even Ludwig von Mises who, as we shall see, was an important exception to this last generalization, relegated the notion of harmony to a distinctly subsidiary role in his system. Recent re-awakened attention to 18th-century theories of spontaneous order, especially as rediscovered and expanded in the work of Hayek, has not had the effect of reintroducing the term ‘economic harmony’ to current usage. We turn now to take notice of the several different (although certainly interrelated) senses in which this term has been used during the history of economics.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access

References

  1. Bastiat, F. 1850. Les harmonies économiques. Paris: Guillaumin.Google Scholar
  2. Carey, H.C. 1836. The harmony of nature. Philadelphia: Carey, Lea & Blanchard.Google Scholar
  3. Carey, H.C. 1852. The harmony of interests, agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial, 2nd ed. New York: Myron Finch.Google Scholar
  4. Carey, H.C. 1858–60. Principles of social science. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott.Google Scholar
  5. Carter, J.C. 1907. Law, its origin, growth and function. New York/London: G.P. Putnam’s Sons.Google Scholar
  6. Ferguson, A. 1767. An essay on the history of civil society. London.Google Scholar
  7. Halévy, E. 1901–4. The growth of philosophic radicalism. Translated from the French by M. Morris, 1928. Boston: Beacon, 1955.Google Scholar
  8. Hayek, F.A. 1967. Studies in philosophy, politics and economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  9. Hayek, F.A. 1973. Law, legislation and liberty, Rules and Order, vol. I. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Heimann, E. 1945. History of economic doctrines. An introduction to economic theory. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Marshall, A. 1920. Principles of economics, 8th ed. London: Macmillan, 1936.Google Scholar
  12. Moss, L.S. 1976. Mountifort Longfield: Ireland’s first professor of political economy. Ottowa: Green Hill.Google Scholar
  13. Myrdal, G. 1932. The political element in the development of economic theory. Translated from the German by P. Streeten. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1954.Google Scholar
  14. Robbins, L. 1952. The theory of economic policy in English classical political economy. London: Macmillan, 1965.Google Scholar
  15. Samuels, W.J. 1966. The classical theory of economic policy. Cleveland/New York: World.Google Scholar
  16. Schumpeter, J.A. 1954. History of economic analysis. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Sowell, T. 1974. Classical economics reconsidered. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Streeten, P. 1954. Recent controversies. Appendix to Myrdal (1932).Google Scholar
  19. Teilhac, E. 1936. Pioneers of American economic thought in the nineteenth century. Translated from the French by E.A.J. Johnson (1936), reprinted, New York: Russell and Russell, 1967Google Scholar
  20. von Mises, L. 1949. Human action: A treatise on economics, 3rd ed. Chicago: Regnery, 1966.Google Scholar
  21. Wicksell, K. 1901. Lectures on political economy, Vol. I. Translated from the Swedish by E. Classen. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1934.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Israel M. Kirzner
    • 1
  1. 1.