Читать бесплатно онлайн книгу  Collected Works of T. R. Malthus. Illustrated

автор Thomas Robert Malthus

The differences of opinion among political economists have of late been a frequent subject of complaint; and it must be allowed, that one of the principal causes of them may be traced to the different meanings in which the same terms have been used by different writers.

The object of the present publication is, to draw attention to an obstacle in the study of political economy, which has now increased to no inconsiderable magnitude. But this could not be done merely by laying down rules for the definition and application of terms, and defining conformably viiito them. It was necessary to show the difficulties which had resulted from an inattention to this subject, in some of the most popular works on political economy; and this has naturally led to the discussion of certain important principles and questions of classification, which it would be most desirable to settle previously, as the only foundation for a correct definition and application of terms.

These are the reasons for the arrangement and mode of treating the subject which has been adopted.

In a mathematical definition, although the words in which it is expressed may vary, the meaning which it is intended to convey is always the same. Whether a straight line be defined to be a line which lies evenly between its extreme points, or the shortest line which can be drawn between two points, there never can be a difference of opinion as to the lines which are comprehended, and those which are not comprehended, in the definition.

The case is not the same with the definitions in the less strict sciences. The classifications in natural history, notwithstanding all the pains which have been taken with them, are still such, that it is sometimes difficult to say to which of two adjoining classes the individuals on the confines of each ought to belong. It is still more difficult, in the sciences of morals and politics, to use terms which may not be understood differently by different persons, according to their different habits and opinions. The terms virtue, morality, equity, charity, are in every-day use; yet it is by no means universally agreed what are the particular acts which ought to be classed under these different heads.

The terms liberty, civil liberty, political liberty, constitutional government, amp;c. amp;c., are frequently understood in a different sense by different persons.

It has sometimes been said of political economy, that it approaches to the strict science of mathematics. But I fear it must be acknowledged, particularly since the great deviations which have lately taken place from the definitions and doctrines of Adam Smith, that it approaches more nearly to the sciences of morals and politics.

It does not seem yet to be agreed what ought to be considered as the best definition of wealth, of capital, of productive labour, or of value;-what is meant by real wages;-what is meant by labour;-what is meant by profits;-in what sense the term ‘demand’ is to be understood,[1] amp;c. amp;c.

As a remedy for such differences, it has been suggested, that a new and more perfect nomenclature should be introduced. But though the inconveniences of a new nomenclature are much more than counterbalanced by its obvious utility in such sciences as chemistry, botany, and some others, where a great variety of objects, not in general use, must be arranged and described so as best to enable us to remember their characteristic distinctions; yet in such sciences as morals, politics, and political economy, where the terms are comparatively few, and of constant application in the daily concerns of life, it is impossible to suppose that an entirely new nomenclature would be submitted to; and if it were, it would not render the same service to these sciences, in promoting their advancement, as the nomenclatures of Linn?us, Lavoisier, and Cuvier, to the sciences to which they were respectively applied.

Under these circumstances, it may be desirable to consider what seem to be the most obvious and natural rules for our guidance in defining and applying the terms used in the science of political economy. The object to be kept in view should evidently be such a definition and application of these terms, as will enable us most clearly and conveniently to explain the nature and causes of the wealth of nations; and the rules chiefly to be attended to may, perhaps, be nearly included in the four following:-

First. When we employ terms which are of daily occurrence in the common conversation of educated persons, we should define and apply them, so as to agree with the sense in which they are understood in this ordinary use of them. This is the best and more desirable authority for the meaning of words.

Secondly. When the sanction of this authority is not attainable, on account of further distinctions being required, the next best authority is that of some of the most celebrated writers in the science, particularly if any one of them has, by common consent, been considered as the principal founder of it. In this case, whether the term be a new one, born with the science, or an old one used in a new sense, it will not be strange to the generality of readers, nor liable to be often misunderstood.

But it may be observed, that we shall not be able to improve the science if we are thus to be bound down by past authority. This is unquestionably true; and I should be by no means inclined to propose to political economists “jurare in verba magistri,” whenever it can be clearly made out that a change would be beneficial, and decidedly contribute to the advancement of the science. But it must be allowed, that in the less strict sciences there are few definitions to which some plausible, nay, even real, objections are not to be made; and, if we determine to have a new one in every case where the old one is not quite complete, the chances are, that we shall subject the science to all the very serious disadvantages of a frequent change of terms, without finally accomplishing our object.

It is acknowledged, however, that a change may sometimes be necessary; and when it is, the natural rules to be attended to seem to be, Thirdly. That the alteration proposed should not only remove the immediate objections which may have been made to the terms as before applied, but should be shown to be free from other equal or greater objections, and on the whole be obviously more useful in facilitating the explanation and improvement of the science. A change which is always itself an evil, can alone be warranted by superior utility taken in the most enlarged sense.

Fourthly. That any new definitions adopted should be consistent with those which are allowed to remain, and that the same terms should always be applied in the same sense, except where inveterate custom has established different meanings of the same word; in which case the sense in which the word is used, if not marked by the context, which it generally is, should be particularly specified.

I cannot help thinking that these rules for the definitions in political economy must be allowed to be obviously natural and proper, and that if changes are made without attention to them, we must necessarily run a great risk of impeding, instead of promoting, the progress of the science.

Yet, although these rules appear to be so obvious and natural, as to make one think it almost impossible that they should escape attention, it must be acknowledged that they have been too often overlooked by political economists; and it may tend to illustrate their use and importance; and possibly excite a little more attention to them in future; to notice some of the most striking deviations from them in the works of writers of the highest reputation.

It will not be worth while to advert to the misnomers of the mercantile system; but the system of the French Economists was a scientific one, and aimed at precision. Yet it must be acknowledged that their definition of wealth violated the first and most obvious rule which ought to guide men of science, as well as others, in the use of terms. Wealth and riches are words in the commonest use; and though all persons might not be able at once to describe with accuracy what they mean when they speak of the wealth of a country, yet all, we believe, who intend to use the term in its ordinary sense, would agree in saying that they do not confine the term either to the gross raw produce, or the neat raw produce of such country. And it is quite certain that two countries, with both the same gross raw produce, and the same neat raw produce, might differ most essentially from each other in a great number of the most universally acknowledged characteristics of wealth, such as good houses, good furniture, good clothes, good carriages, which, in the one case, might be possessed only by a few great landlords, and a small number of manufacturers and merchants; and in the other case, by an equal, or greater proportion of landlords, and a much greater number of manufacturers and merchants. This difference might take place without any difference in the amount of the raw produce, the neat produce, or the population, merely by the conversion of idle retainers and menial servants into active artisans and traders. The result, therefore, of comparing together the wealth of different countries, according to the sense of that term adopted by the Economists, and according to the sense in which it is generally understood in society, would be totally different. And this circumstance detracts in a very great degree from the practical utility of the works of the Economists.

In adverting to the terms and definitions of Adam Smith, in his “Wealth of Nations,” I think it will be found that he has less frequently and less strikingly deviated from the rules above laid down, and that he has more constantly and uniformly kept in view the paramount object of explaining in the most intelligible manner the causes of the wealth of nations, according to the ordinary acceptation of the expression, than any of the subsequent writers in the science, who have essentially differed from him. His faults in this respect are not so much that he has often fallen into the common error, of using terms in a different sense from that in which they are ordinarily applied in society, but that he is sometimes deficient in the precision of his definitions; and does not always, when adopted, adhere to them with sufficient strictness.

His definition of wealth, for instance, is not sufficiently accurate; nor does he adhere to it with sufficient uniformity: yet it cannot be doubted that he means by the term generally the material products which are necessary, useful, and agreeable to man, and are not furnished by nature in unlimited abundance; and I own I feel quite convinced that it is in this sense in which it is most generally understood in society, and in which it may be most usefully applied, in explaining the causes of the wealth of nations.

In adopting the labour which a commodity will command as the measure of its value, he has not, as it appears to me, given the most conclusive reasons for it, nor has he in all cases made it quite clear whether he means the labour which a commodity will command, or the labour worked up in it. He has more frequently failed in not adhering practically to the measure he had proposed, and in substituting as an equivalent the quantity of corn a commodity will command, which, as a measure of value, has properties essentially distinct from labour. Yet, with all this, it must be acknowledged that he has generally used the terms labour and value in the sense in which they are ordinarily understood in society, and has, with few exceptions, applied labour as the measure of value in the way in which it may be made most extensively useful in the explanation of the science.

It has been sometimes objected to Adam Smith, that he has applied the term productive in a new and not very appropriate sense. But if we examine the manner in which this term is applied in ordinary conversation and writing, it must be allowed that, whatever meaning may be thought to attach to it, from its derivation, it is practically used as implying causation in regard to almost any effect whatever. Thus we say that such and such things are productive of the best effects, others of the very worst effects, and others are unproductive of, or do not produce, any perceptible effects; meaning by these expressions, that some things cause the best effects, others the worst effects, others, again, cause no perceptible effects; and these effects may, of course, apply according to the context, and the subject under discussion, to the health of the body, the improvement of the mind, the structure of society, or the wealth of a nation.

Now, Adam Smith was inquiring into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations; and having confined the term wealth to material objects, and described human labour as the main source of wealth, he clearly saw the necessity of making some distinction between those different kinds of labour which, without reference to their utility, he could not but observe had the most essentially distinct effects, in directly causing that wealth, the nature of which he was investigating. He called one of these kinds of labour productive, or productive of wealth, and the other unproductive, or not productive of wealth; and knowing that it would occasion interminable confusion, and break down all the barriers between production and consumption, to attempt to estimate the circumstances which might indirectly contribute to the production of wealth, he described productive labour in such a way, as to leave no doubt that he meant the labour which was so directly productive of wealth, as to be estimated in the quantity or value of the material object produced.

In his application of the terms productive and unproductive, therefore, he does not seem to have violated the usage of common conversation and writing; and it appears to me, that, if we fully and impartially consider the consequences of making no distinction between different kinds of labour, we must feel the conviction that the terms which he has adopted are pre-eminently useful for the purpose to which they are applied-that is, to enable him to explain, intelligibly and satisfactorily, the causes of the wealth of different nations, according to the ordinary meaning which men attach to the term wealth, whatever may be their theories on the subject.

Where Adam Smith has most failed in the use of his terms, is in the application of the word real. The real value of a commodity he distinctly and repeatedly states to be the quantity of labour which it will command, in contradistinction to its nominal value, that is, its value in money, or any other specific commodity named. But while he is thus using the word real, in this sense, he applies it to wages in a totally different sense, and says, that the real wages of labour are the necessaries and conveniencies of life which the money received by the labourer will enable him to command. Now, it must be allowed that both these modes of applying the word real, cannot be correct, or consistent with each other. If the value of labour varies continually with the varying quantity of the necessaries and conveniencies of life which it will command, it is completely inconsistent to bring it forward as a measure of real value. And if it can, with propriety, be brought forward as a measure of the real value of commodities, it follows necessarily that the average value of a given quantity of labour, of a given description, can never be considered as in the slightest degree affected by the varying quantity of commodities for which it will exchange. Of this Adam Smith seemed to be fully aware in the fifth chapter of his first book, where he says distinctly, that when more or less goods are given in exchange for labour, it is the goods that vary, not the labour.

It is evident, therefore, that to get right, we must cease to use the term real, in one or other of the meanings in which it has been applied by Adam Smith.

If the term had never been applied in political economy in a different sense from that in which it was first used by Adam Smith, there could be no doubt that it might be advantageously continued, and the expression real value might answer its purpose very well, and save any question respecting the substitution of some other term, such as intrinsic, positive, absolute, or natural. But as the term real has been very generally applied, by most writers, to wages, implying the real quantity of the means of subsistence and comfort which the labourer is enabled to command, in contradistinction to his nominal or money wages, the matter cannot be so easily settled, and we must come to some determination as to which of the two meanings it would be most advisable to reject.

Adhering to the rules which have been laid down, it will probably be acknowledged that the term real, when applied to the means of obtaining something in exchange, seems more naturally to imply the power of commanding the necessaries, conveniencies, and luxuries of life, than the power of commanding labour. A certain quantity of wealth is something more real, if the word real be used in its most ordinary sense, than a certain quantity of labour; and if, on this account, we continue to apply the term real to wages, we must express by positive, absolute, intrinsic, or natural, what Adam Smith has expressed by the word real, as applied to value: or it would be still better if political economists would agree in assigning a distinct meaning to the term value, as contradistinguished from price, whenever the value of a commodity is mentioned without mentioning any specific article in which it is proposed to estimate it, in the same manner as the price of a commodity is universally understood to mean price in money, whenever the term is used without referring specifically to some other article.

If, however, it should be found that the term real, in the sense in which it is first and most frequently applied by Adam Smith, has by usage got such fast hold of this meaning, that it cannot easily be displaced; and, further, if it be thought that an adjunct of this kind to the term value will sometimes be wanted in explanations, and that to express what Adam Smith means, the term real is preferable to either of the terms intrinsic, positive, absolute, or natural, there would be little objection to letting it retain its first meaning, provided we took care not to use it in application to the wages of labour, as implying the necessaries, conveniencies, and amusements of life. Instead of real wages, we must then say corn wages, commodity wages, wages in the means of subsistence, or something of the kind. But the other change is obviously more simple, and therefore in my opinion preferable.

It would lead me too far and into too many repetitions, if I were to go through the principal definitions of the continental political economists, and examine the manner in which they have used their terms in reference to the obvious rules above laid down; but I cannot resist noticing one very signal deviation from them in the justly distinguished work of M. Say. It relates to the term utility.

It must be allowed by those who are acquainted with M. Say’s work, first, that he has used the term utility in a sense totally different from that in which it is used in common conversation, and in the language of those who are considered as the best authorities in political economy. Proceeding upon the principle, that nothing can be valuable which is not useful to some person or other, he has strangely identified utility and value, and made the utility of a commodity proportionate to its value, although the custom is universal of distinguishing between that which is useful and that which is merely high-priced, of that which is calculated to satisfy the acknowledged and general wants of mankind, and that which may be only calculated to satisfy the capricious tastes of a few. He has thus violated the first and most obvious rule for the use of terms.

Secondly, he has gone directly against the usage of the best writers in political economy, and particularly against the authority of Adam Smith, whom he himself considers as the main founder of the science. Adam Smith has declared his opinion in the most decided manner on this subject, by contrasting value in use, and value in exchange, and illustrating the distinction between them by adducing the marked instances of a diamond and water. M. Say, therefore, in the manner in which he has applied the term utility, has violated the second obvious rule for the use of terms, as well as the first.

Thirdly, the objections to the old terms in use, wealth and value, if there were any, do not by any means seem to have been such as to warrant the introduction of a new term. The object of M. Say seems to have been to show, that production does not mean production of new matter in the universe, but I cannot believe that even the Economists had this idea; and it is quite certain that Adam Smith’s definition of production completely excludes it. “There is one sort of labour,” he says, “which adds to the value of the subject on which it is bestowed *?*?* and as it produces a value may be called productive.”[2] There is, certainly, no question here about the creation of new matter. And as M. Say observes, that when things are in their ordinary and natural state their value is the measure of their utility, while he had before affirmed that riches were in proportion to value,[3] it is difficult to conceive what beneficial purpose he could have in view in introducing the term utility thus made synonymous with value or riches.

Fourthly, as the terms useful and utility are in such very common use, when applied in their accustomed sense, and cannot easily be supplied by others, it is extremely difficult to confine their application to the new sense proposed by M. Say. It is scarcely possible not to use them sometimes, as M. Say himself has done, according to their ordinary acceptation; but this necessarily introduces uncertainty and obscurity into the language of political economy.

M. Say had before made little or no distinction between riches and value, two terms which Mr. Ricardo justly considers as essentially different. He then introduces another term, utility, which, as he applies it, can hardly be distinguished from either of the others. The new term, therefore, could not have been called for; and it must be allowed that the use of it in the sense proposed, violates all the most obvious rules for the introduction of a new term into any science.