著者

齋藤 宏之

出版者

日本大学

雑誌

日本大学経済学部経済科学研究所紀要 (ISSN:03859983)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.15, pp.87-104, 1991-03-20

---

Wesley Clair Mitchell, while analyzing the evolving stage of capitalism after the 1870's, when concern about monopoly, poverty, depression, and waste increased and institutional contradictions of the U.S. intensified, at the same time raised objections to the unrealistic assumptions of orthodox economics and the conclusions derived from them. Many orthodox economists, however, still adhered to the classical school dating back to Adam Smith, and subscribed to the view that the laissez-faire system was satisfactory. They were unable to propose an effective prescription against the above mentioned unexpected harms which had resulted from the Smith-derived laissez-faire policy. Under these circumstances, Mitchell attempted to propose national economic planning from the standpoint of advancing social control and reform. This gave him an important opportunity to thoroughly criticize the Smith's economics. In view of this, I will mainly focus my consideration on Chapter 2 "Adam Smith and How Political Economy Came to be Systematized in England" in Mitchell's Types of Economic Theory: From Mercantilism to Institutionalism. I would also like to find out how much Mitchell revealed, in his statement taken up in this article of mine, form the social reformist viewpoint of advocating the achievement of social change through government intervention in the economy, the relationship between laissez-faire and self interest derived from Smith's hypothesis on the characteristics of human nature, which was his answer to its central issue. Then Mitchell detected that Smith's belief in laissez-faire had derived not from observations but from a syllogism developed around his conception of human nature, i.e. it was conclusions through a series of reflections and reasoning. Mitchell further perceived the historical limitation of Smith's theory in the sense that his faith in individual initiative embodied a new practice, which was becoming a mass phenomenon in the 18th century England. Taking account of these points, we can essentially and comprehensively understand the ineivtability that Mitchell, when he was faced with the institutional contradictions of the American monopolistic capitalism, chose the economic theory of Smith as the object of his criticism and the conclusions he reached in the relatively late stage of his scholarly life.