The Contrasting Theories of Industrialization of Francois Quesnay and Adam Smith
Francois Quesnay regarded industry as "sterile," and argued that proindustrial government policies reduced population and undermined government finances, while Adam Smith saw immense benefits in the div ision of labor that could only be exploited in industry. Their theories are explained from the original texts, where both advocated that the balance between agriculture and industry should be left to market forces: Quesnay did not support agricultural protection, while Smith did not support infant industry protection. Quesnay's argument that it undermines government finances to tax a surplus-yielding agriculture in order to subsidize surplus-absorbing industries is one that many developing countries that are growing disappointingly slowly could profit from. Copyright 1988 by Royal Economic Society.
Volume (Year): 40 (1988)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK|
Fax: 01865 267 985
Web page: http://oep.oupjournals.org/
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.oup.co.uk/journals|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:40:y:1988:i:2:p:269-88. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Oxford University Press)or (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.