Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-ndw9j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:22:56.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

2014 HES PRESIDENTIAL ADDRESS BEES AND SILKWORMS: MANDEVILLE, HUME, AND THE FRAMING OF POLITICAL ECONOMY

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2015

Margaret Schabas
Margaret Schabas*
Affiliation:
Department of Philosophy, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of the History of Economic Thought , Volume 37 , Issue 1 , March 2015 , pp. 1 - 15
Copyright
Copyright © The History of Economics Society 2015 

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

REFERENCES

Appleby, Joyce Oldham. 1978. Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Brodbeck, May. 1968. “Methodological Individualisms: Definition and Reduction.” In Brodbeck, May, ed., Readings in the Philosophy of Social Sciences. New York: Macmillan. 280–303.Google Scholar
Arbuthnot, John. 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): 186–190.Google Scholar
Cesarano, Filippo. 1998. “Hume’s Specie-Flow Mechanism and Classical Monetary Theory: An Alternative Interpretation.” Journal of International Economics 45 (1): 173–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, John B. 2011. Individuals and Identity in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
De Marchi, Neil. 2001. “Exposure to Strangers and Superfluities: Mandeville’s Regime for Great Wealth and Foreign Treasure.” In Groenewegen, Peter, ed., Physicians and Political Economy. London and New York: Routledge, 67–92.Google Scholar
Finlay, Christopher. 2007. Hume’s Social Philosophy: Human Nature and Commercial Sociability in A Treatise of Human Nature. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Force, Pierre. 2003. Self-Interest Before Adam Smith. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Catherine. 2006. The Body Economic. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald F. 1983. The Modern Liberal Theory of Man. London: Croom Helm.Google Scholar
Gaus, Gerald F. 2010. “Liberalism.” In Zalta, Edward N., ed., The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2010/entries/.liberalism/. Accessed April 3, 2014.Google Scholar
Gill, Michael. 2000. “Hume’s Progressive View of Human Nature.” Hume Studies 26 (1): 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsmith, M. M. 1988. “Regulating Anew the Moral and Political Sentiments of Mankind: Bernard Mandeville and the Scottish Enlightenment.” Journal of the History of Ideas 49 (4): 587–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grampp, William D. 1952. “The Liberal Element in English Mercantilism.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 66 (4): 465–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hirschman, Albert O. 1977. The Passions and the Interests. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hont, Istvan. 2005. Jealousy of Trade. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1779] 1980. Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion. Edited by Popkin, Richard. Indianapolis: Hackett.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1777] 1985. Essays: Moral, Political and Literary. Edited by Miller, Eugene F.. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1751] 1998. An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Edited by Beauchamp, Tom L.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hume, David. [1729–30] 2000. A Treatise of Human Nature. Edited by Fate Norton, David and Norton, Mary J.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hundert, E. J. 1994. The Enlightenment’s Fable: Bernard Mandeville and the Discovery of Society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hutchison, Terence. 1988. Before Adam Smith. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Magnusson, Lars. 1994. Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mandeville, Bernard. [1732] 1954. A Letter to Dion. Edited by Dobrée, Bonamy. Liverpool: University Press of Liverpool.Google Scholar
Mandeville, Bernard. [1724] 1988. The Fable of the Bees. Edited by Kaye, F. B.. Two volumes. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund.Google Scholar
Nagel, Thomas. 1970. The Possibility of Altruism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, David Fate, and Norton, Mary J., eds. 1996. The David Hume Library. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Bibliographical Society in Association with the National Library of Scotland.Google Scholar
Raynor, David. 1980. “Hume’s Knowledge of Bayes’s Theorem.” Philosophical Studies 38: 105–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reinert, Sophus A. 2011. Translating Empire: Emulation and the Origins of Political Economy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, Nathan. 1963. “Mandeville and Laissez-Faire.” Journal of the History of Ideas 24 (2): 183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rotwein, Eugene. [1955] 2007. “Introduction.” In Rotwein, Eugene, ed., David Hume: Writings on Economics. With a New Introduction by Margaret Schabas. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.Google Scholar
Russell, Paul. 1995. Freedom and Moral Sentiment: Hume’s Way of Naturalizing Responsibility. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 1995. “Parmenides and the Cliometricians.” In Little, Daniel, ed., On the Reliability of Economic Models. Boston: Kluwer, 183–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 2005. The Natural Origins of Economics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 2007. “Groups versus Individuals in Hume’s Political Economy.” The Monist 90 (2): 200–212.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 2008. “Hume’s Monetary Thought Experiments.” Studies in the History and Philosophy of Science 39 (3): 161–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 2013. “Philosophy of the Human Sciences.” In Garrett, Aaron, ed., The Routledge Companion to Eighteenth Century Philosophy. London and New York: Routledge, 731–752.Google Scholar
Schabas, Margaret. 2014. “’Let Your Science be Human’: David Hume and the Honourable Merchant.” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 21 (6): 977–990.Google Scholar
Smith, Adam. [1776] 1976. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Edited by Campbell, R. H. and Skinner, A. S.. Two volumes. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sreenivasan, Gopal. 1995. The Limits of Lockean Rights in Property. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stern, Philip J., and Wennerlind, Carl, eds. 2014. Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Stigler, Stephen. 1986. The History of Statistics. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, Jacqueline. 2009. “Hume’s Later Moral Philosophy.” In Norton, David Fate and Taylor, Jacqueline, eds. The Cambridge Companion to Hume. Second edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 311–340.Google Scholar
Thère, Christine. 1998. “Economic Publishing and Authors.” In Faccarello, Gilbert, ed., Studies in the History of French Political Economy: From Bodin to Walras. London: Routledge, 1–56.Google Scholar
Wennerlind, Carl. 2001. “The Link between David Hume’s A Treatise of Human Nature and His Fiduciary Theory of Money.” History of Political Economy 33 (1): 139–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerlind, Carl. 2002. “David Hume’s Political Philosophy: A Theory of Commercial Modernization.” Hume Studies 28 (2): 247–270.Google Scholar
Wennerlind, Carl. 2005. ‘David Hume’s Monetary Theory Revisited: Was He Really a Quantity Theorists and an Inflationist?” Journal of Political Economy 113 (1): 223–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wennerlind, Carl, and Schabas, Margaret, eds. 2007. David Hume’s Political Economy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar