The Contrasting Theories of Industrialization of Francois Quesnay and Adam Smith

Walter Eltis

Oxford Economic Papers, 1988, vol. 40, issue 2, 269-88

Abstract: 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.

Date: 1988
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (1)

Downloads: (external link)
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0030-7653%2819880 ... 0.CO%3B2-6&origin=bc full text (application/pdf)
Access to full text is restricted to JSTOR subscribers. See http://www.jstor.org for details.

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: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:oup:oxecpp:v:40:y:1988:i:2:p:269-88

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://academic.oup.com/journals

Access Statistics for this article

Oxford Economic Papers is currently edited by James Forder and Francis J. Teal

More articles in Oxford Economic Papers from Oxford University Press Oxford University Press, Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP, UK.
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Oxford University Press ().