Adam Smith: Egalitarian or anti-egalitarian?: His responses to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality

Satoshi Niimura

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose - There has been controversy about whether Adam Smith is an economic egalitarian because he expresses at least four distinct views on equality, in two of which, he approves of inequality, and in the other two, he claims otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to isolate and consider these four views carefully to understand Smith's complete position on equality. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines Smith's apparently contradictory views on equality as his evolving response to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. Findings - Hume and Rousseau criticize any income inequality that is disproportionate to industry between the rich and poor. Smith's response to their critiques evolves over time. In his initial response in early writings, he defends inequality in a civilized society by comparing it with a poor primitive society. However, in his later response in The Wealth of Nations, he eventually accepts Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. According to Smith, an equal and opulent society will evolve. A primitive society is equal but poor. In contrast, an existing civilized society is opulent but unequal. In each society, equality and opulence are incompatible. However, Smith believes that a future civilized society will fully achieve both equality and opulence. Originality/value - The paper analyses both historically and theoretically the comprehensive structure of Smith's egalitarian views.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)888-903
Number of pages16
JournalInternational Journal of Social Economics
Volume43
Issue number9
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2016

Fingerprint

equality
primitive society
Society
Adam Smith
income
industry
methodology
Equality
economics
Values

Keywords

  • Adam Smith
  • David Hume
  • Distributive justice
  • Egalitarian
  • Equality
  • Jean-Jacques Rousseau

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Social Sciences(all)
  • Economics and Econometrics

Cite this

Adam Smith : Egalitarian or anti-egalitarian?: His responses to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. / Niimura, Satoshi.

In: International Journal of Social Economics, Vol. 43, No. 9, 2016, p. 888-903.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{8bc23443d08445d7b33d30bf9c2d0afe,
title = "Adam Smith: Egalitarian or anti-egalitarian?: His responses to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality",
abstract = "Purpose - There has been controversy about whether Adam Smith is an economic egalitarian because he expresses at least four distinct views on equality, in two of which, he approves of inequality, and in the other two, he claims otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to isolate and consider these four views carefully to understand Smith's complete position on equality. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines Smith's apparently contradictory views on equality as his evolving response to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. Findings - Hume and Rousseau criticize any income inequality that is disproportionate to industry between the rich and poor. Smith's response to their critiques evolves over time. In his initial response in early writings, he defends inequality in a civilized society by comparing it with a poor primitive society. However, in his later response in The Wealth of Nations, he eventually accepts Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. According to Smith, an equal and opulent society will evolve. A primitive society is equal but poor. In contrast, an existing civilized society is opulent but unequal. In each society, equality and opulence are incompatible. However, Smith believes that a future civilized society will fully achieve both equality and opulence. Originality/value - The paper analyses both historically and theoretically the comprehensive structure of Smith's egalitarian views.",
keywords = "Adam Smith, David Hume, Distributive justice, Egalitarian, Equality, Jean-Jacques Rousseau",
author = "Satoshi Niimura",
year = "2016",
doi = "10.1108/IJSE-06-2015-0177",
language = "English",
volume = "43",
pages = "888--903",
journal = "International Journal of Social Economics",
issn = "0306-8293",
publisher = "Emerald Group Publishing Ltd.",
number = "9",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Adam Smith

T2 - Egalitarian or anti-egalitarian?: His responses to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality

AU - Niimura, Satoshi

PY - 2016

Y1 - 2016

N2 - Purpose - There has been controversy about whether Adam Smith is an economic egalitarian because he expresses at least four distinct views on equality, in two of which, he approves of inequality, and in the other two, he claims otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to isolate and consider these four views carefully to understand Smith's complete position on equality. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines Smith's apparently contradictory views on equality as his evolving response to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. Findings - Hume and Rousseau criticize any income inequality that is disproportionate to industry between the rich and poor. Smith's response to their critiques evolves over time. In his initial response in early writings, he defends inequality in a civilized society by comparing it with a poor primitive society. However, in his later response in The Wealth of Nations, he eventually accepts Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. According to Smith, an equal and opulent society will evolve. A primitive society is equal but poor. In contrast, an existing civilized society is opulent but unequal. In each society, equality and opulence are incompatible. However, Smith believes that a future civilized society will fully achieve both equality and opulence. Originality/value - The paper analyses both historically and theoretically the comprehensive structure of Smith's egalitarian views.

AB - Purpose - There has been controversy about whether Adam Smith is an economic egalitarian because he expresses at least four distinct views on equality, in two of which, he approves of inequality, and in the other two, he claims otherwise. The purpose of this paper is to isolate and consider these four views carefully to understand Smith's complete position on equality. Design/methodology/approach - The paper examines Smith's apparently contradictory views on equality as his evolving response to Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. Findings - Hume and Rousseau criticize any income inequality that is disproportionate to industry between the rich and poor. Smith's response to their critiques evolves over time. In his initial response in early writings, he defends inequality in a civilized society by comparing it with a poor primitive society. However, in his later response in The Wealth of Nations, he eventually accepts Hume and Rousseau's critiques of inequality. According to Smith, an equal and opulent society will evolve. A primitive society is equal but poor. In contrast, an existing civilized society is opulent but unequal. In each society, equality and opulence are incompatible. However, Smith believes that a future civilized society will fully achieve both equality and opulence. Originality/value - The paper analyses both historically and theoretically the comprehensive structure of Smith's egalitarian views.

KW - Adam Smith

KW - David Hume

KW - Distributive justice

KW - Egalitarian

KW - Equality

KW - Jean-Jacques Rousseau

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84987638495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84987638495&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1108/IJSE-06-2015-0177

DO - 10.1108/IJSE-06-2015-0177

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:84987638495

VL - 43

SP - 888

EP - 903

JO - International Journal of Social Economics

JF - International Journal of Social Economics

SN - 0306-8293

IS - 9

ER -