Is the Invisible Hand un−Smithian? A Comment on Rothschild

N. Emrah Aydinonat ()

Economics Bulletin, 2006, vol. 2, issue 2, pages 1-9

Abstract: Rothschild (2001) argues that the invisible hand refers to blind individuals and presume privileged knowledge on the part of the social scientist. For this reason, she takes it that the invisible hand is, in fact, an un−Smithian concept and that Smith was making an ironical joke. In this brief comment, I argue that the invisible hand does not imply blind and futile individuals or privileged knowledge and it cannot be argued that it is an un−Smithian concept on these grounds. Briefly, it is argued here that although it may be true that Smith used the invisible hand somewhat ironically, this does not imply that it is un−Smithian.

Keywords: Adam Smith; Connecting Principles; Invisible Hand; Unintended Consequences (search for similar items in EconPapers)
JEL-codes: B0 B3 (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2006 Written
View list of references View citations in EconPapers

Downloads: (external link)
http://economicsbulletin.vanderbilt.edu/2006/volume2/EB-06B00002A.pdf (application/pdf)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: http://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ebl:ecbull:v:2:y:2006:i:2:p:1-9

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economics Bulletin from Economics Bulletin
Address: Economics Bulletin, Department of Economics, 414 Calhoun Hall, Vanderbilt University, Nashville TN 37235, USA
Series data maintained by John Conley ().