著者

古谷 豊

出版者

The Japanease Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.49, no.2, pp.1-17, 2007-12-25 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

17

---

Much ink has been spent over the last few decades on James Steuart's theory on banks. Critics are united in the view that his ‘banks upon mortgage’ is an idea of central importance in Steuart's theory on banks. They propose that insofar as Steuart argued against bank lending upon mercantile credit because it is precarious, his concept of bank credit upon mortgage must be regarded as a representative pillar of his theory. This understanding has also supported the claim that Steuart's theory on banks is outmoded in the sense that it gives little or no allowance for banks providing mercantile credit.If we consider Steuart's theory on banks within his whole chain of arguments, that interpretation is open to question. Steuart's principles of political economy, including his theory on banks, are built within a historical structure. He denies bank credit based on mercantile credit, only when the society is in the infancy of trade. In his theory on banks, he posited three classifications: ‘banks upon private credit’ (i.e. upon mortgage), ‘banks upon mercantile credit, ’ and ‘banks upon public credit, ’ each with a different role in the development of the economy.Considered in this perspective, the significance of Steuart's theory on banks lies in that the principles on which bank credit is based extend according to the development of trade and industry and to the policy of statesmen. His theory of banks must be regarded as a part of his arguments on providing money in proportion to the circulation.

著者

古谷 豊

出版者

経済学史学会

雑誌

経済学史研究 (ISSN:18803164)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.54, no.1, pp.124-125, 2012 (Released:2019-10-31)

著者

古谷 豊

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.43, no.43, pp.24-37, 2003 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

25

---

In his doctrine of exchange, Steuart advanced a policy in which the exchange rate be kept at par by the state. He says that by a statesman's giving bills at par on all occasions, and being himself at the expense of transportation and insurance, in bringing home and sending off all balances, exchange would of itself come to par.Today it is widely accepted that this policy of Steuart's is only a temporary expedient. It is said that Steuart intended this policy as an emergency measure meant to avoid an evil effect of the strong sterling rate. The statesman must not intervene under normal occasions; it is allowed only when the balance of payments is in his favor, and the strong sterling rate discourages exportation.It is shown in this paper that this interpretation stems mainly from the following two factors. First, Steuart's theory is explained as a primitive equilibrium theory. Critics using this approach assert that Steuart's theory of political economy is fundamentally based on market mechanism, and that state intervention is allowed only as a temporary expedient. Second, they understood Steuart's term “high exchange” as “strong sterling rate, ” when Steuart points out that the “high exchange proves a prodigious discouragement to trade in general.”But as we see in this paper, Steuart used this term to refer to a large detachment of the exchange rate from the par. A strong sterling rate, therefore, is expressed as “a price of exchange in favour of a country, ” and a very weak sterling rate is expressed as “high exchange against a country.” According to Steuart, the problem was not the high sterling rate, but the large fluctuations of the exchange. The detachment of the exchange rate from the par, whether it be over or under the par, “produces an instability in the profits upon trade.” Thus Steuart concludes “that it is greatly for the interest of a trading state to keep exchange, at all times, as nearly at par as possible.” This exchange policy enables bills of exchange to circulate according to the true sterling value.The point I wish to emphasize in this paper is that this policy is a constituent of Steuart's monetary policy. Steuart regards bills of exchange as money, along with coins and bank notes. It holds true for bills, when Steuart states “It is of great consequence to a statesman to understand it (the doctrine of money) thoroughly; and it is of the last importance to trade and credit, that the money of a nation be kept stable and invariable.” Accordingly, Steuart enumerates this exchange policy, policy on coin, and policy on bank notes as three branches of “the whole policy of circulation.” In Steuart's theory of political economy, it is of great importance to appropriately supply circulation with stable and invariable money, and this doctrine of exchange must also be understood in this context.

著者

古谷 豊

出版者

The Japanese Society for the History of Economic Thought

雑誌

経済学史学会年報 (ISSN:04534786)

巻号頁・発行日

vol.38, no.38, pp.111-122, 2000 (Released:2010-08-05)

参考文献数

13

---

Over the last few years a considerable number of studies have been made on various problems regarding James Steuart's theory of interest. What seems to be lacking, however, is a study on the very nature of the “interest” concept in Steuart's theory.S. Okuda is among those who note that analysis on this subject is necessary for investigating other problems regarding Steuart's theory of interest. Steuart describes that a landed man, who received paper (money) for a land security has to pay interest to the bank because the paper “circulates like money, ” but the land does not. From this description, Okuda concluded that Steuart understood interest as the price for receiving the liquidity of money. And this idea is now widely accepted.There are some objections that can be raised against this interpretation. This conclusion is true for the landlords, but not for the industrious class, or the state. Here one gets a glimpse of the secret background of Steuart's “interest” concept. In Steuart's theory of political economy, the theory of interest is the base of the theory of credit, and Steuart argues the “interest” concept according to the structure of his theory of credit.