This article reconstructs Adam Smith's theory of international trade and compares it with the way it is presented in modern textbooks as the theory of absolute advantage. This textbook presentation falls short of Smith's original ideas. I argue that the reason for this is the doxographic reconstruction of Smith's theory to fit him into a Whig history of international trade theory. In this way the historiography of international trade theory has falsely established Smith as a forerunner of modern neoclassical trade theory. I conclude by discussing to what extent Smith's insights can still be relevant today and what can be learnt from the mistreatment Smith has suffered in the historiography of international trade theory.
Is trade a promoter of peace? Adam Smith, one of the earliest defenders of trade, worries that commerce may instigate some perverse incentives, encouraging wars. The wealth that commerce generates decreases the relative cost of wars; it increases the ability to finance wars through debts, which decreases their perceived cost; and it increases the willingness of commercial interests to use wars to extend their markets, increasing the number and prolonging the length of wars. Smith therefore cannot assume that trade would yield a peaceful world. While defending and promoting trade, Smith warns us not to take peace for granted.
The sugar industry is a major provider of jobs and income for sugar-exporting countries in Africa. The lower sugar prices that were caused by the recent liberalisation of the EU sugar market may not only jeopardise economic development in those countries, but the reforms also create difficulties for sugar-importing countries in Africa that seek to develop their sugar industries. The article analyses the effects of EU sugar market reforms on three African countries — Nigeria, South Africa and Mozambique — and provides insights into the balancing of the EU sugar policy’s intended effects against their adverse effects on European trade and development policy.
There are three different interpretations of Adam Smith’s trade theory in modern literature: first, the neoclassical theory of absolute advantage; second, an interpretation based on increasing returns; third, an interpretation of uneven development. These interpretations come to widely different conclusions, especially considering the development of the pattern of trade in Smith’s theory. I discuss how these three interpretations emerged. They do not stem from a more detailed analysis of Smith’s works itself but reflect changes within international trade theory. They all result from the fact that economists have imposed nineteenth- and twentieth-century modes of thoughts on Smith’s theory, forcing his writings into later-developed theoretical frameworks. In contrast to classical economists in the nineteenth century, these subsequent interpretations misrepresent Smith’s trade theory in order to portray him as a forerunner of later theories. The differing interpretations can thus be explained only against the backdrop of the development of international trade theory.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.