The Wealth of Nations

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  The Wealth of Nations landed in bookshops on the 9th of March 1776, and its first edition sold out in six months. Its author, the Scottish economist and philosopher Adam Smith, had spent the better part of seventeen years assembling notes, observing conversations among economists, and reworking earlier studies into what would become one of the most consequential books in the history of ideas. The printer William Strahan wrote to a friend that the book required too much thought to be popular, yet here it was, gone from shelves before the year was out. What made this five-book treatise so urgently read? What questions did it answer, and which did it leave dangerously open? The answers reach from a pin factory to Parliament, from the Scottish Highlands to the American colonies, and from the fall of the Roman Empire to the war debts of modern governments.

• 2. Against Mercantilism

  ›

  The dominant economic doctrine of Smith's era held that a nation's wealth depended on hoarding gold and silver while running a trade surplus at all costs. Smith set out to demolish this view from the first pages of his treatise. He attacked two central pillars of mercantilist thinking: the belief that protective tariffs serve a nation's economic interest, and the idea that large reserves of precious metals are necessary for national prosperity. In their place he proposed that free trade makes all participants better off over time, a position that later became the foundation of the modern free-trade argument. His most famous expression of this idea appears in Book Four, Chapter Two, where he describes a merchant who, seeking only personal security and gain, is "led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention." Smith was careful to note that this passage referred specifically to the choice between supporting domestic industry and importing goods; later economists broadened the metaphor far beyond its original scope. Smith reserved some of his sharpest language for the tradesman class and the political influence it wielded, writing that "people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices." He found it impossible to prevent such meetings by law, but insisted the law ought to do nothing to facilitate them. Alongside his critique of merchants, he attacked export bounties, preferential trade treaties, and monopolies, arguing that each redirected capital away from its most productive use. The Spanish Inquisition took the threat seriously enough to ban the book's French translation.

• 3. Division of Labour

  ›

  Smith opened Book One with the observation that the division of labour has produced a greater increase in productive capacity than any other factor in economic life. He traced this to three causes: higher skill from repetition, time saved by not switching between tasks, and the invention of machinery that one worker, constantly occupied with a single operation, might devise to ease their own work. Agriculture, he noted, was far less amenable to this specialisation than manufacturing, which is why wealthy nations pull ahead of poorer ones more dramatically in industry than in farming. Behind this efficiency argument, however, Smith held a second and darker thought. In Book Five he observed that a man whose entire working life is spent performing a few simple operations "has no occasion to exert his understanding or to exercise his invention." He grows, Smith wrote, "as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become," incapable of forming a just judgment about even ordinary private duties. This was the same intellectual erosion that Karl Marx would later name alienation, though Marx mainly opposed Smith's broader framework. Smith's prescription was not to abandon the division of labour but to insist that government take pains to prevent its worst effects through public education for poor adults, an institution he actively championed.

• 4. Wages, Poverty and Power

  ›

  Smith wrote about wages with an unflinching eye on who held power in the negotiation. Workers bid against one another when jobs are scarce and wages fall; employers compete for workers when labour is short and wages rise. But this process, he observed, is routinely distorted. Masters, he wrote, maintain a constant and uniform combination not to raise wages, conducted "with the utmost silence and secrecy till the moment of execution." When workers attempt the same, employers call loudly for the magistrate and the full severity of the law. Smith illustrated the practical stakes of this imbalance by contrasting England with the North American colonies. England had more total revenue, yet wages were lower, because the sheer number of workers flowing toward new employment opportunities meant they competed fiercely among themselves. In the colonies, capital arrived at roughly the same pace that population grew, so wages remained higher. He was equally direct about poverty's human cost, quoting conditions in the Scottish Highlands where a mother might bear twenty children and find fewer than two still alive. "In some places one half the children born die before they are four years of age," he wrote. He defined a person's wealth by a single measure: the quantity of labour they can afford to purchase, calling labour "the real exchange for commodities." That measure placed the poorest members of society at the centre of economic analysis, not as an afterthought.

• 5. Taxation and Public Finance

  ›

  Smith proposed four maxims to govern taxation: proportionality, transparency, convenience, and efficiency. His position on who should bear the heaviest burden was unambiguous. "It is not very unreasonable," he wrote, "that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion." He singled out a tax on house rents as one that would fall heaviest on the rich without being unreasonable, and he called a land value tax "the most proper" form of progressive taxation. Some economists read these passages as the earliest advocacy for progressive taxation in economic literature. James Madison, who wrote much of the United States Constitution, is known to have read the book, and the term "direct tax" as used in Article One of the Constitution traces back to Smith's distinction between direct and indirect taxes in Book Five. Smith was equally candid about the political temptations surrounding war debts. Politicians borrow to fund wars because raising taxes sufficiently would disgust the public; when peace returns, the debts remain, mortgaged against future revenues. Money set aside to pay them down is nearly always diverted to schemes that win votes. The result, Smith concluded, is that war debts grow beyond the end of every war and are almost never repaid by the generations that incurred them. Prime Minister William Pitt cited Smith on the floor of the House of Commons on the 17th of February 1792, crediting him with "the best solution to every question connected with the history of commerce."

• 6. Reception and Influence

  ›

  Edward Gibbon wrote to Adam Ferguson on the 1st of April 1776 to say that Smith had produced "an extensive science in a single book, and the most profound ideas expressed in the most perspicuous language." David Hume, by contrast, told the printer Strahan the book required too much thought to be as popular as Gibbon's own Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, and time proved him wrong. Five editions appeared during Smith's lifetime: in 1776, 1778, 1784, 1786, and 1789. The most substantial revision came in 1784, when Smith annexed a separate pamphlet of Additions and Corrections to produce a three-volume third edition that included, for the first time, an index, and added entirely new sections to Books Four and Five. After Smith's death in 1790, a team led by Edwin Cannan collated all five editions and published the differences alongside an edited sixth edition in 1904. By modern count, the book has received 36,331 citations and ranks as the second most cited work in economics published before 1950, behind Karl Marx's Das Kapital. Its influence spread across party lines and oceans. The Radical MP Richard Cobden carried Smith through the breadth of Britain arguing against the Corn Laws, his annotated copy still held at his home at Dunford House. Thomas Jefferson told John Norvell in a letter dated the 14th of June 1807 that Smith's book was the best available on money and commerce. Alexander Hamilton, meanwhile, read it closely enough to write a rebuttal; his Report on Manufactures argued against many of Smith's free-trade positions, drawing instead on the ideas of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, the very mercantilist thinker Smith had targeted.