Encyclopedia, Difference between revisions of "Friedrich List" - New World

From New World Encyclopedia
Line 8: Line 8:
 
'''Friedrich List''' ([[August 6]], [[1789]] - [[November 30]], [[1846]]) was a leading 19th Century [[Germany|German]] [[economist]] who believed in the "[[National System]]" type of [[capitalism]].  
 
'''Friedrich List''' ([[August 6]], [[1789]] - [[November 30]], [[1846]]) was a leading 19th Century [[Germany|German]] [[economist]] who believed in the "[[National System]]" type of [[capitalism]].  
  
== Biography ==
 
 
== Biography ==
 
== Biography ==
 
He was born at [[Reutlingen]], [[Württemberg]]. Unwilling to follow the occupation of his father, who was a prosperous [[tanning|tanner]], he became a clerk in the public service, and by [[1816]] had risen to the post of ministerial under-secretary. In [[1817]] he was appointed professor of administration and politics at the [[University of Tübingen]], but the fall of the ministry in 1819 compelled him to resign. As a deputy to the Württemberg chamber, he was active in advocating administrative reforms. He was eventually expelled from the chamber and in April [[1822]] sentenced to ten months' imprisonment with hard labor in the fortress of [[Asperg]]. He escaped to [[Alsace]], and after visiting France and England returned in 1824 to finish his sentence, and was released on undertaking to emigrate to America. There he resided from 1825 to 1832, first engaging in farming and afterwards in [[journalism]].
 
He was born at [[Reutlingen]], [[Württemberg]]. Unwilling to follow the occupation of his father, who was a prosperous [[tanning|tanner]], he became a clerk in the public service, and by [[1816]] had risen to the post of ministerial under-secretary. In [[1817]] he was appointed professor of administration and politics at the [[University of Tübingen]], but the fall of the ministry in 1819 compelled him to resign. As a deputy to the Württemberg chamber, he was active in advocating administrative reforms. He was eventually expelled from the chamber and in April [[1822]] sentenced to ten months' imprisonment with hard labor in the fortress of [[Asperg]]. He escaped to [[Alsace]], and after visiting France and England returned in 1824 to finish his sentence, and was released on undertaking to emigrate to America. There he resided from 1825 to 1832, first engaging in farming and afterwards in [[journalism]].
 
 
It was in [[United States|America]] that he gathered from a study of [[Alexander Hamilton]]'s work the inspiration which made him an economist of his pronounced "National System" views. The discovery of coal on some land which he had acquired made him financially independent, and he became United States consul at [[Leipzig]] in 1832. He strongly advocated the extension of the railway system in Germany, and the establishment of the [[Zollverein]] was due largely to his enthusiasm and ardour. In 1841 "...List was offered the post of Editor of the [[Rheinische Zeitung]], a new liberal paper which was being established in Cologne. But he declared that ill-health prevented him from accepting the post - which eventually went to [[Karl Marx]]..."( Henderson 1983, p. 85 ). His latter days were darkened by many misfortunes; he lost much of his American property in a financial crisis, ill-health also overtook him, and he brought his life to an end by his own hand on the 30th of November [[1846]].
+
It was in [[United States|America]] that he gathered from a study of [[Alexander Hamilton]]'s work the inspiration which made him an economist of his pronounced "National System" views. The discovery of coal on some land which he had acquired made him financially independent, and he became United States consul at [[Leipzig]] in 1832. He strongly advocated the extension of the railway system in Germany, and the establishment of the [[Zollverein]] was due largely to his enthusiasm and ardour. In 1841 ". List was offered the post of Editor of the [[Rheinische Zeitung]], a new liberal paper which was being established in Cologne. But he declared that ill-health prevented him from accepting the post - which eventually went to [[Karl Marx]].."( Henderson 1983, p. 85 ). His latter days were darkened by many misfortunes; he lost much of his American property in a financial crisis, ill-health also overtook him, and he brought his life to an end by his own hand on the 30th of November [[1846]].
  
== Influences ==
+
=== Influences ===
Though List's practical conclusions were different from those of [[Adam Müller]] (1779-1829), he was largely influenced by Alexander Hamilton and the [[American System (economic system)|American System]] of [[capitalism]] rooted in Hamilton's economic principles, but also by the general mode of thinking of America's first Treasury Secretary, and by his strictures on the doctrine of [[Adam Smith]]. It was particularly against the cosmopolitan principle in the contemporary economical system that he protested, and against the absolute doctrine of [[free trade]], which was in harmony with that principle. He gave prominence to the national idea, and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development.
+
Though List's practical conclusions were different from those of [[Adam Smith]] and [[ J. B. Say]], he was largely influenced by Alexander Hamilton and the [[American System (economic system)|American System]] of [[capitalism]] rooted in Hamilton's economic principles, but also by the general mode of thinking of America's first Treasury Secretary, and by his strictures on the doctrine of [[Adam Smith]]. It was particularly against the cosmopolitan principle in the contemporary economical system that he protested, and against the absolute doctrine of [[free trade]], which was in harmony with that principle. He gave prominence to the national idea, and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development.
  
==Economics based on nations==
+
==List’s main economic theories==
List's theory of "national economics" differed from the doctrines of "individual economics" and "cosmopolitan economics" put forward by [[Adam Smith]] and J.B. Say. List contrasted the economic behaviour of an individual with that of a [[nation]]. An [[individual]] promotes only his own personal interests but a state fosters the [[welfare]] of all its citizens. An individual may prosper from activities which harm the interests of a nation . "[[Slavery]] may be a public calamity for a country, nevertheless some people may do very well in carrying on the slave trade and in holding slaves." Again, activities beneficial to society may injure the interests of certain individuals. "Canals and railroads may do great good to a nation, but all waggoners will complain of this improvement. Every new invention has some inconvenience for a number of individuals, and is nevertheless a public blessing’.  List argued that although some government action was essential to stimulate the economy, an overzealous government might do more harm than good. "It is bad policy to regulate everything and to promote everything by employing social powers, where things may better regulate themselves and can be better promoted by private exertions; but it is no less bad policy to let those things alone which can only be promoted by interfering social power.
 
  
Due to the "universal union" that nations have with their populace, List stated that "from this political union originates their commercial union, and it is in consequence of the perpetual peace thus maintained that commercial union has become so beneficial to them. [...]  The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power, is a conclusion for which the reasons are very strong. [...] A universal republic [...], i.e. a union of the nations of the earth whereby they recognise the same conditions of right among themselves and renounce self-redress, can only be realised if a large number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry and civilisation, political cultivation and power. Only with the gradual formation of this union can free trade be developed, only as a result of this union can it confer on all nations the same great advantages which are now experienced by those provinces and states which are politically united. The system of protection, inasmuch as it forms the only means of placing those nations which are far behind in [[civilisation]] on equal terms with the one predominating nation," appears to be the most efficient means of furthering the final union of nations, and hence also of promoting true freedom of trade." <ref>(National System of Political Economy, Friedrich List - p 102-3)</ref>
+
===Economics based on productive powers===
 +
List considered that the prosperity of a nation depended not upon the wealth that it had amassed but upon its ability to develop '''productive forces''' which would create wealth in the future. These forces included scientific discoveries, advances in technology, improvements in transport, the provision of educational facilities, the maintenance of law and order, an efficient public administration, and the introduction of a measure of self-government.  
  
"In his seventh letter List repeated his assertion that economists should realise that since the human race is divided into independent states, "a nation would act unwisely to endeavour to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare, and independence. It is a dictate of the law of self-preservation to make its particular advancement in power and strength the first principles of its policy". A country should not count the cost of defending the overseas trade of its merchants.  And "the manufacturing and agricultural interest must be promoted and protected even by sacrifices of the majority of the individuals, if it can be proved that the nation would never acquire the necessary perfection [...] without such protective measures." <ref>(Ibid, p 150)</ref>
 
  
==Disagreements with Adam Smith's ideas==
+
He kept proceeding to draw a distinction between the theory of exchange value and the theory of powers of prediction. He argued that Adam Smith and his followers had laid too much emphasis upon material wealth, which had an exchange value, and had not adequately appreciated the significance of the productive powers that create wealth. He praised Adam Smith for breaking new ground with his theory of the division of labor, but criticized him for omitting to explain fully the role in the economy of the 'productive powers of labor', which he had mentioned in the introduction to ''The Wealth of Nations''.
List argued that statesmen had two responsibilities - "one to contemporary society and one to future generations. Matters requiring an immediate decision would normally claim most of their attention, leaving little time for a consideration of problems that might be expected to arise in the future. But when a country had reached a turning point in its development, its leaders were under a moral obligation to deal with issues that would affect the next generation. On the threshold of a new phase in the development of their country, statesmen should be prepared to take the long view, despite the need to deal also with matters of immediate urgency."<ref>("The German [[Zollverein]]" in the ''[[Edinburgh Review]]'', [[1844]], p 117)</ref> The nation having a continuous life, its true wealth must consist &mdash; and this is List's fundamental doctrine &mdash; not in the quantity of exchange values which it possesses, but in the full and many-sided development of its productive powers. Its economic education should be more important than the immediate production of values, and it might be right that one generation should sacrifice its gain and enjoyment to secure the strength and skill of the future. In the sound and normal condition of a nation which has attained economic maturity, the three productive powers of agriculture, manufactures and commerce should be alike developed. But the two latter factors are superior in importance, as exercising a more effective and fruitful influence on the whole culture of the nation, as well as on its independence. Navigation, railways, all higher technical arts, connect themselves specially with these factors; whilst in a purely agricultural state there is a tendency to stagnation. But for the growth of the higher forms of industry all countries are not adapted only those of the temperate zones, whilst the torrid regions have a natural [[monopoly]] in the production of certain raw materials; and thus between these two groups of countries a [[division of labor]] and confederation of powers spontaneously takes place.
 
  
He refused to accept Smith's system the title of the industrial, which he thought more appropriate to the mercantile system, and designated the former as "the exchange-value system." He denied the parallelism asserted by Smith between the economic conduct proper to an individual and to a nation, and held that the immediate private interest of the separate members of the community would not lead to the highest good of the whole. That the nation was an existence, standing between the individual and humanity, and formed into a unity by its language, manners, historical development, culture and constitution. That this unity must be the first condition of the security, well-being, progress and civilization of the individual; and private economic interests, like all others, must be subordinated to the maintenance, completion and strengthening of the nationality.
+
He also complained that Adam Smith had failed to “...''assign a productive character to the mental labour of those who maintain law and order and cultivate and promote instruction, religion, science, and art''...”.  
  
==Stages of economic development==
+
He thought it ridiculous that a pig breeder or a maker of bagpipes should be regarded as a productive member of society, while a professor or a composer should not.  
List also had theorised the stages of economic development through which the nations of the temperate zone, which are furnished with all the necessary conditions, naturally pass, in advancing to their normal economic state. These are:
 
#pastoral life
 
#agriculture
 
#agriculture united with manufactures; whilst in the final stage agriculture, manufactures and commerce are combined.
 
The economic task of the state is to bring into existence through legislative and administrative action the conditions required for the progress of the nation through these stages. Out of this view arises List's scheme of industrial politics. Every nation, according to him, should begin with free trade, stimulating and improving its [[agriculture]] by intercourse with richer and more cultivated nations, importing foreign manufactures and exporting raw products. When it is economically so far advanced that it can manufacture for itself, then a system of protection should be employed to allow the home industries to develop themselves fully, and save them from being overpowered in their earlier efforts by the competition of more matured foreign industries in the home market. When the national industries have grown strong enough no longer to dread this competition, then the highest stage of progress has been reached; free trade should again become the rule, and the nation be thus thoroughly incorporated with the universal industrial union. What a nation loses for a time in exchange values during the protective period she much more than gains in the long run in productive power, the temporary expenditure being strictly analogous, when we place ourselves at the point of view of the life of the nation, to the cost of the industrial education of the individual.
 
  
"In a thousand cases the power of the State is compelled to impose restrictions on private industry. It prevents the ship owner from taking on board slaves on the west coast of Africa, and taking them over to America. It imposes regulations as to the building of steamers and the rules of navigation at sea, in order that passengers and sailors may not be sacrificed to the avarice and caprice of the captains. [...] Everywhere does the State consider it to be its duty to guard the public against danger and loss, as in the sale of the necessaries of life, so also in the sale of medicines, &c."<ref>(National System of Political Economy, Friedrich List - p 166)</ref>
 
  
== View of Britain and world trade==
+
On the issue of law he writes that:”...''while J. B. Say was right when he asserted that 'laws cannot create wealth', it was just as right to argue that laws could 'create productive power, which is more important than riches, i.e. than the possession of values of exchange''....'" (Henderson 1983, p. 177) , and finally and foremost: “....''The civilization, political education and power of nations, depend chiefly on their economical condition and reciprocally; the more advanced their economy, the more civilized and powerful will be the nation, the more rapidly will its civilization and power increase, and the more will its economical culture be developed''....”( List 1856 )
While List once had urged Germany to join other 'manufacturing nations of the second rank' to check Britain's 'insular supremacy', by [[1841]] he "considered that the United States and Russia would be the most powerful countries in the world in the future - a view expressed by [[de Tocqueville]] in the previous year. List hoped to persuade political leaders in England to co-operate with Germany to ward off this danger. His proposal was perhaps not so far fetched as might appear at first sight. In [[1844]] the writer of an article in a leading review had declared that 'in every point of view, whether politically or commercially, we can have no better alliance than that of the German nation, spreading as it does, its 42 millions of souls without interruption over the surface of central Europe'<ref>(''The German Zollverein'' in the ''Edinburgh Review'', [[1844]], Vol. LXXIX, p 105 et seq.)</ref>
 
  
The practical conclusion which List drew for Germany was that she needed for her economic progress an extended and conveniently bounded territory reaching to the sea-coast both on north and south, and a vigorous expansion of manufactures and commerce, and that the way to the latter lay through judicious protective legislation with a customs union comprising all German lands, and a German marine with a Navigation Act. The national German spirit, striving after independence and power through union, and the national industry, awaking from its lethargy and eager to recover lost ground, were favorable to the success of List's book, and it produced a great sensation. He ably represented the tendencies and demands of his time in his own country; his work had the effect of fixing the attention, not merely of the speculative and official classes, but of practical men generally, on questions of political economy; and his ideas were undoubtedly the economic foundation of modern Germany as applied by the practical genius of [[Otto von Bismarck|Bismarck]].
+
===Importing duties assist cultivation of domestic industry===
 +
The following excerpts define List’s theory of national development:
  
List considered that [[Napoleon]]'s 'Continental System', aimed just at damaging Britain during a bitter long-term war, had in fact been quite good for German industry. This was the direct opposite of what was believed by the followers of [[Adam Smith]]. As List put it:
+
“….In the economical development of nations by means of external trade, four periods must be distinguished. In the first, agriculture is encouraged by the importation of manufactured articles, and by the exportation of its own products; in the second, manufacturers begin to increase at home, whilst the importation of foreign manufactures to some extent continues; in the third, home manufactures mainly supply domestic consumption and the internal markets; finally, in the fourth, we see the exportation upon a large scale of manufactured products, and the importation of raw materials and agricultural products…..” ( List 1956 ).
  
:''"I perceived that the popular theory took no account of nations, but simply of the entire human race on the one hand, or of the single individual on the other. I saw clearly that free competition between two nations which are highly civilised can only be mutually beneficial in case both of them are in a nearly equal position of industrial development, and that any nation which owing to misfortunes is behind others in industry, commerce, and navigation... must first of all strengthen her own individual powers, in order to fit herself to enter into free competition with more advanced nations. In a word, I perceived the distinction between cosmopolitical and political economy."''<ref>(''The National System of Political Economy'', by Friedrich List, translated by Sampson S. Lloyd M.P., [[1885]] edition, Author's Preface, Page xxvi.)</ref>
+
“…The system of import duties being considered as a mode of assisting the economical development of a nation, by regulating its external trade, must constantly take as a rule the principle of the industrial education of the country.  To encourage agriculture by the aid of protective duties is vicious policy; for agriculture can be encouraged only by promoting manufacturing industry; and the exclusion of raw material and agricultural products from abroad, has no other result than to impede the rise of national manufactures. .” ( ibid. )
  
List's argument was that [[Germany]] should follow actual English practice rather than the abstractions of Smith's doctrines. "Had the English left everything to itself - 'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends - the [German] merchants of the [[Steelyard]] would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, [[England]] would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as [[Portugal]] became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist. Indeed, it is more than probable that without her [highly protectionist] commercial policy England would never have attained to such a large measure of municipal and individual freedom as she now possesses, for such freedom is the daughter of industry and wealth.
+
“….. it is only when a nation has reached such a stage of development that she can bear the strain of competition with foreign manufactures without injury in any respect, that she can safely dispense with protection to her own manufactures, and enter on a policy of general free trade…..” ( List 1827 )
  
== Legacy ==
+
This, in fact, is the central idea of List's theory, which in its economical aspect he opposed to the cosmopolitical theory of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, and in its political and national aspect to their theory
List holds historically one of the highest places in economic thought as applied to practical objects. His principal work is entitled ''Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie'' (1841) and was translated into English as ''The National System of Political Economy''.
+
of universal freedom of trade. This “economic nationalism” can be spotted permeating his whole economic writing.
 +
 
 +
===List’s theory of “national economics”===
 +
List repeated his assertion that economists should realize that since the human race is divided into independent states, “….a nation would act unwisely to endeavor to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare, and independence. It is a dictate of the law of self-preservation to make its particular advancement in power and strength the first principles of its policy….”
 +
He claimed that a country should not count the cost of defending the overseas trade of its merchants: “….the manufacturing and agricultural interest must be promoted and protected even by sacrifices of the majority of the individuals, if it can be proved that the nation would never acquire the necessary perfection ... without such protective measures…..." ( Henderson 1983, p. 150)
 +
 
 +
Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx took the hopeful view that nations and national rivalry were a relic from the past that could be easily overcome. Smith relied on commercial self-interest. Marx relied on class divisions erasing national differences. Both were quite correct as to the general direction in which the world was moving. But List was more realistic in thinking that the excellent goal of a cosmopolitical world could not be quickly achieved without allowing for the present existence and power of rival nations and states. Even from this point of view,  nobody now disputes that Marx and Engels seriously underestimated the strength of nationalism ( Williams ).
 +
 
 +
===Disagreements with Adam Smith's ideas===
 +
In the third chapter of The Wealth of Nations, Smith mentions the actual cause of the division of labour, which is the benefits resulting from the formation of a very large economic unit. From the point of view of net production, the larger the better, obviously. List, at this reasons: But supposing the large economic unit contains several separate sovereign states? Smith does not ask this question. It may not have occurred to him. He was a man who felt that the union with Britain had been a great blessing. Did he also foresee an eventual union of Europe being brought about by trade?
 +
 +
Friedrich List correctly notes that Smith drew on systems of thought that were 'cosmopolitical', seeing national differences as a relic of the Dark Ages that enlightened politics would eventually overcome. But List realised that there would be problems. And he had the advantage of seeing the drastic self-destruction of 18th century Enlightenment in the French Revolution. In the Europe-wide struggle of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had backed various reactionary forces rather than let a strong Empire emerge in Continental Europe.  
  
Before [[1914]], List and Marx were the two best-known German economists and theorists of development. "This book has been more frequently translated than the works of any other German economist, except Karl Marx."<ref> (Henderson)</ref>
+
And so, his answer was: “….The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power, is a conclusion for which the reasons are very strong…… A universal republic ….., i.e. a union of the nations of the earth whereby they recognize the same conditions of right among themselves and renounce self-redress, can only be realized if a large number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry and civilization, political cultivation and power. Only with the gradual formation of this union can free trade be developed, only as a result of this union can it confer on all nations the same great advantages which are now experienced by those provinces and states which are politically united. The system of protection, inasmuch as it forms the only means of placing those nations which are far behind in [[civilization]] on equal terms with the one predominating nation," appears to be the most efficient means of furthering the final union of nations, and hence also of promoting true freedom of trade….." ( List 1844, pp. 102-3 )    
  
His influence among developing nations has been considerable.  Japan in the 19th century followed his model.<ref> [http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/asia.html List's influence on Japan (cyberzone.com)], [http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/soros2.html List's influences Japan (cyberzone.com)]</ref> It has also been argued that [[Deng Xiaoping]]'s post-Mao policies were inspired by List.<ref> [http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/courses/coursepages/Spring2005/ps137b/PRECIS16.pdf berkeley.edu on List influences of Deng]</ref>
+
== Legacy ==
 +
List holds historically one of the highest places in economic thought as applied to practical objects. His principal work is entitled ''Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie'' (1841) and was translated into English as ''The National System of Political Economy'' and this book has been more frequently translated than the works of any other German economist, except Karl Marx.  
  
"As Marx was not interested in the survival of the capitalist system, he was not really concerned with economic policy, except in so far as the labour movement was involved. There, his argument was concentrated on measures to limit the length of the working day, and to strengthen trade union bargaining power. His analysis was also largely confined to the situation in the leading capitalist country of his day - the UK - and he did not consider the policy problems of other Western countries in catching up with the lead country (as Friedrich List did). In so far as Marx was concerned with other countries, it was mainly with poor countries which were victims of Western imperialism in the merchant capitalist era."<ref>''Dynamic forces in Capitalist Development: A Long-Run Comparative View'', by Angus Maddison. Oxford University Press, 1991, page 19) </ref>
+
Eugene During, a lecturer at the university of Berlin, declared that: “… List's doctrines represented ‘the first real advance’ in economics since the publication of The Wealth of Nations ( by Adam Smith ) …" and Marx himself wrote in his famous Anti-Duhring pamphlet: "…It would be better to read Herr Duhring's chapter on mercantilism in the 'original', that is, in F. List's “National System”, Chapter 29…" Marx was clearly well aware of what List was on about but chose never to deal with it directly. And because Marx did not, List was largely ignored by later writers.
  
 +
However, List’s  influence among developing nations has been considerable.  Despite the “National System” was vigorously attacked,  such was the demand for it that three editions were called for within the space of a few months, and translations of it were published in English, French, Russian, Swedish, Hungarian, and many other foreign languages.  Japan in the 19th century followed his model ( Japan ), Hungarian leader Kossuth alluded to him in public as “…the man who had best instructed the nations as to their true national economical interests…” , and it has also been argued that [[Deng Xiaoping]]'s post-Mao policies were inspired by List ( China ).
  
 +
The last excerpt from “The National System” can be forever taken as a “manual” to all the NGOs in the developed world dealing with the developing countries: “…..The economical education of a country of inferior intelligence and culture, or one thinly populated, relatively to the extent and the fertility of its territory, is effected most certainly by free trade, with more advanced, richer, and more industrious nations. Every commercial restriction in such a country aiming at the increase of manufactures, is premature, and will prove detrimental, not only to civilization in general, but the progress of the nation in particular. If its intellectual, political, and economical education, under the operation of free trade, has advanced so far, that the importation of foreign manufactures, and the want of markets for its own products has become an obstacle to its ulterior development, then only can protective measures be justified.... Internal and external trade flourish alike under the protective system; these have no importance but among nations supplying their own wants by their own manufacturing industry,` consuming their own agricultural products, and purchasing foreign raw materials and commodities with the surplus of their manufactured articles. Home and foreign trade are both insignificant in the merely agricultural countries of temperate climes, and their external commerce is usually in the hands of the manufacturing and trading nations in communication with them. …. A good system of protection does not imply any monopoly in the manufacturers of a country; it only furnishes a guarantee against losses to those who devote their capital, their talents, and their exertions to new branches of industry….” ( List 1856 )
  
==Further reading==
+
==References==
 +
*List, George F., National System of Political Economy,  Lippincott, Philadelphia 1856, pp. 63-64, 69-70, 73, 77-81
 +
*List, George F., Outlines of a New System of Political Economy, Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1827
 +
*List, George F, ''The German Zollverein'' in the ''Edinburgh Review'', [[1844]], Vol. LXXIX, p. 105 et seq.)
 +
*List, G. Fr. ,  Vorlaufer und ein Opfer für das Vaterland , (Anon., 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1877)
 +
*69 <javascript:opN('lstNPENotes.html>
 
*Biography of List by Goldschmidt (Berlin, 1878)
 
*Biography of List by Goldschmidt (Berlin, 1878)
 
*Biography of List by Jentsch (Berlin, 1901)
 
*Biography of List by Jentsch (Berlin, 1901)
*''Fr. List, ein Vorlaufer und ein Opfer für das Vaterland'' (Anon., 2 vols., Stuttgart, 1877)
+
*China [http://www.polisci.berkeley.edu/courses/coursepages/Spring2005/ps137b/PRECIS16.pdf berkeley.edu on List influences of Deng]
*[[M. E. Hirst]]'s ''Life of Friedrich List'' (London, 1909) contains a bibliography and a reprint of List's ''Outlines of American Political Economy'' (1827).
+
*Henderson, William O., Friedrich List: Economist and Visionary , Frank Cass, London 1983
 
*Henderson, William O. ''Friedrich List: Economist and Visionary'' (Frank Cass, London 1983)
 
*Henderson, William O. ''Friedrich List: Economist and Visionary'' (Frank Cass, London 1983)
*[http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/list/ The National System of Political Economy] - a free download of his main work, in English translation
+
*[[ Hirst, M. E.]],  ''Life of Friedrich List'' , London, 1909; contains a bibliography and a reprint of List's ''Outlines of American Political Economy'',1827.
 +
*Japan [http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/asia.html List's influence on Japan (cyberzone.com)]
 +
*Williams, Gwydion M. < Friedrich List and the 19th century economic alternative <http://members.aol.com/BevinSoc/ltur6.htm>
 
*[http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596055421 Paperback Edition of 2005, from Amazon Books]
 
*[http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1596055421 Paperback Edition of 2005, from Amazon Books]
 
*[http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/listlieb.htm Friedrich List: ''Outlines of American Political Economy''] - web pages with a commentary
 
*[http://members.tripod.com/~american_almanac/listlieb.htm Friedrich List: ''Outlines of American Political Economy''] - web pages with a commentary

Revision as of 21:41, 26 June 2006


Friedrich List (August 6, 1789 - November 30, 1846) was a leading 19th Century German economist who believed in the "National System" type of capitalism.

Biography

He was born at Reutlingen, Württemberg. Unwilling to follow the occupation of his father, who was a prosperous tanner, he became a clerk in the public service, and by 1816 had risen to the post of ministerial under-secretary. In 1817 he was appointed professor of administration and politics at the University of Tübingen, but the fall of the ministry in 1819 compelled him to resign. As a deputy to the Württemberg chamber, he was active in advocating administrative reforms. He was eventually expelled from the chamber and in April 1822 sentenced to ten months' imprisonment with hard labor in the fortress of Asperg. He escaped to Alsace, and after visiting France and England returned in 1824 to finish his sentence, and was released on undertaking to emigrate to America. There he resided from 1825 to 1832, first engaging in farming and afterwards in journalism.

It was in America that he gathered from a study of Alexander Hamilton's work the inspiration which made him an economist of his pronounced "National System" views. The discovery of coal on some land which he had acquired made him financially independent, and he became United States consul at Leipzig in 1832. He strongly advocated the extension of the railway system in Germany, and the establishment of the Zollverein was due largely to his enthusiasm and ardour. In 1841 "…. List was offered the post of Editor of the Rheinische Zeitung, a new liberal paper which was being established in Cologne. But he declared that ill-health prevented him from accepting the post - which eventually went to Karl Marx….."( Henderson 1983, p. 85 ). His latter days were darkened by many misfortunes; he lost much of his American property in a financial crisis, ill-health also overtook him, and he brought his life to an end by his own hand on the 30th of November 1846.

Influences

Though List's practical conclusions were different from those of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, he was largely influenced by Alexander Hamilton and the American System of capitalism rooted in Hamilton's economic principles, but also by the general mode of thinking of America's first Treasury Secretary, and by his strictures on the doctrine of Adam Smith. It was particularly against the cosmopolitan principle in the contemporary economical system that he protested, and against the absolute doctrine of free trade, which was in harmony with that principle. He gave prominence to the national idea, and insisted on the special requirements of each nation according to its circumstances and especially to the degree of its development.

List’s main economic theories

Economics based on productive powers

List considered that the prosperity of a nation depended not upon the wealth that it had amassed but upon its ability to develop productive forces which would create wealth in the future. These forces included scientific discoveries, advances in technology, improvements in transport, the provision of educational facilities, the maintenance of law and order, an efficient public administration, and the introduction of a measure of self-government.


He kept proceeding to draw a distinction between the theory of exchange value and the theory of powers of prediction. He argued that Adam Smith and his followers had laid too much emphasis upon material wealth, which had an exchange value, and had not adequately appreciated the significance of the productive powers that create wealth. He praised Adam Smith for breaking new ground with his theory of the division of labor, but criticized him for omitting to explain fully the role in the economy of the 'productive powers of labor', which he had mentioned in the introduction to The Wealth of Nations.

He also complained that Adam Smith had failed to “...assign a productive character to the mental labour of those who maintain law and order and cultivate and promote instruction, religion, science, and art...”.

He thought it ridiculous that a pig breeder or a maker of bagpipes should be regarded as a productive member of society, while a professor or a composer should not.


On the issue of law he writes that:”...while J. B. Say was right when he asserted that 'laws cannot create wealth', it was just as right to argue that laws could 'create productive power, which is more important than riches, i.e. than the possession of values of exchange....'" (Henderson 1983, p. 177) , and finally and foremost: “....The civilization, political education and power of nations, depend chiefly on their economical condition and reciprocally; the more advanced their economy, the more civilized and powerful will be the nation, the more rapidly will its civilization and power increase, and the more will its economical culture be developed....”( List 1856 )

Importing duties assist cultivation of domestic industry

The following excerpts define List’s theory of national development:

“….In the economical development of nations by means of external trade, four periods must be distinguished. In the first, agriculture is encouraged by the importation of manufactured articles, and by the exportation of its own products; in the second, manufacturers begin to increase at home, whilst the importation of foreign manufactures to some extent continues; in the third, home manufactures mainly supply domestic consumption and the internal markets; finally, in the fourth, we see the exportation upon a large scale of manufactured products, and the importation of raw materials and agricultural products…..” ( List 1956 ).

“…The system of import duties being considered as a mode of assisting the economical development of a nation, by regulating its external trade, must constantly take as a rule the principle of the industrial education of the country. To encourage agriculture by the aid of protective duties is vicious policy; for agriculture can be encouraged only by promoting manufacturing industry; and the exclusion of raw material and agricultural products from abroad, has no other result than to impede the rise of national manufactures. ….” ( ibid. )

“….. it is only when a nation has reached such a stage of development that she can bear the strain of competition with foreign manufactures without injury in any respect, that she can safely dispense with protection to her own manufactures, and enter on a policy of general free trade…..” ( List 1827 )

This, in fact, is the central idea of List's theory, which in its economical aspect he opposed to the cosmopolitical theory of Adam Smith and J. B. Say, and in its political and national aspect to their theory of universal freedom of trade. This “economic nationalism” can be spotted permeating his whole economic writing.

List’s theory of “national economics”

List repeated his assertion that economists should realize that since the human race is divided into independent states, “….a nation would act unwisely to endeavor to promote the welfare of the whole human race at the expense of its particular strength, welfare, and independence. It is a dictate of the law of self-preservation to make its particular advancement in power and strength the first principles of its policy….” He claimed that a country should not count the cost of defending the overseas trade of its merchants: “….the manufacturing and agricultural interest must be promoted and protected even by sacrifices of the majority of the individuals, if it can be proved that the nation would never acquire the necessary perfection ... without such protective measures…..." ( Henderson 1983, p. 150)

Both Adam Smith and Karl Marx took the hopeful view that nations and national rivalry were a relic from the past that could be easily overcome. Smith relied on commercial self-interest. Marx relied on class divisions erasing national differences. Both were quite correct as to the general direction in which the world was moving. But List was more realistic in thinking that the excellent goal of a cosmopolitical world could not be quickly achieved without allowing for the present existence and power of rival nations and states. Even from this point of view, nobody now disputes that Marx and Engels seriously underestimated the strength of nationalism ( Williams ).

Disagreements with Adam Smith's ideas

In the third chapter of The Wealth of Nations, Smith mentions the actual cause of the division of labour, which is the benefits resulting from the formation of a very large economic unit. From the point of view of net production, the larger the better, obviously. List, at this reasons: But supposing the large economic unit contains several separate sovereign states? Smith does not ask this question. It may not have occurred to him. He was a man who felt that the union with Britain had been a great blessing. Did he also foresee an eventual union of Europe being brought about by trade?

Friedrich List correctly notes that Smith drew on systems of thought that were 'cosmopolitical', seeing national differences as a relic of the Dark Ages that enlightened politics would eventually overcome. But List realised that there would be problems. And he had the advantage of seeing the drastic self-destruction of 18th century Enlightenment in the French Revolution. In the Europe-wide struggle of the Napoleonic Wars, Britain had backed various reactionary forces rather than let a strong Empire emerge in Continental Europe.

And so, his answer was: “….The result of a general free trade would not be a universal republic, but, on the contrary, a universal subjection of the less advanced nations to the predominant manufacturing, commercial and naval power, is a conclusion for which the reasons are very strong…… A universal republic ….., i.e. a union of the nations of the earth whereby they recognize the same conditions of right among themselves and renounce self-redress, can only be realized if a large number of nationalities attain to as nearly the same degree as possible of industry and civilization, political cultivation and power. Only with the gradual formation of this union can free trade be developed, only as a result of this union can it confer on all nations the same great advantages which are now experienced by those provinces and states which are politically united. The system of protection, inasmuch as it forms the only means of placing those nations which are far behind in civilization on equal terms with the one predominating nation," appears to be the most efficient means of furthering the final union of nations, and hence also of promoting true freedom of trade….." ( List 1844, pp. 102-3 )

Legacy

List holds historically one of the highest places in economic thought as applied to practical objects. His principal work is entitled Das Nationale System der Politischen Ökonomie (1841) and was translated into English as The National System of Political Economy and this book has been more frequently translated than the works of any other German economist, except Karl Marx.

Eugene During, a lecturer at the university of Berlin, declared that: “… List's doctrines represented ‘the first real advance’ in economics since the publication of The Wealth of Nations ( by Adam Smith ) …" and Marx himself wrote in his famous Anti-Duhring pamphlet: "…It would be better to read Herr Duhring's chapter on mercantilism in the 'original', that is, in F. List's “National System”, Chapter 29…" Marx was clearly well aware of what List was on about but chose never to deal with it directly. And because Marx did not, List was largely ignored by later writers.

However, List’s influence among developing nations has been considerable. Despite the “National System” was vigorously attacked, such was the demand for it that three editions were called for within the space of a few months, and translations of it were published in English, French, Russian, Swedish, Hungarian, and many other foreign languages. Japan in the 19th century followed his model ( Japan ), Hungarian leader Kossuth alluded to him in public as “…the man who had best instructed the nations as to their true national economical interests…” , and it has also been argued that Deng Xiaoping's post-Mao policies were inspired by List ( China ).

The last excerpt from “The National System” can be forever taken as a “manual” to all the NGOs in the developed world dealing with the developing countries: “…..The economical education of a country of inferior intelligence and culture, or one thinly populated, relatively to the extent and the fertility of its territory, is effected most certainly by free trade, with more advanced, richer, and more industrious nations. Every commercial restriction in such a country aiming at the increase of manufactures, is premature, and will prove detrimental, not only to civilization in general, but the progress of the nation in particular. If its intellectual, political, and economical education, under the operation of free trade, has advanced so far, that the importation of foreign manufactures, and the want of markets for its own products has become an obstacle to its ulterior development, then only can protective measures be justified.... Internal and external trade flourish alike under the protective system; these have no importance but among nations supplying their own wants by their own manufacturing industry,` consuming their own agricultural products, and purchasing foreign raw materials and commodities with the surplus of their manufactured articles. Home and foreign trade are both insignificant in the merely agricultural countries of temperate climes, and their external commerce is usually in the hands of the manufacturing and trading nations in communication with them. …. A good system of protection does not imply any monopoly in the manufacturers of a country; it only furnishes a guarantee against losses to those who devote their capital, their talents, and their exertions to new branches of industry….” ( List 1856 )

References
ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

Sources and notes

  • 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica


Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.