Yes, Adam Smith Was an Economist (A Very Modern One Indeed)

Meardon, Stephen; Ortmann, Andreas

doi:10.1177/104346396008003007

Cited by 13 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Had Schumpeter read the TMS carefully and had he known the LRBL , he might, for example, have had a different appreciation of this rhetorical strategy. Schumpeter might also have better understood the principal–agent issues that run like a red thread from LRBL , over key concepts of the TMS (see Meardon and Ortmann 1996a, 1996b), the efficiency wage arguments in Book I of WN (whose analytic novelty Schumpeter seems to completely have missed although he bestowed faint praise on Smith’s performance here), 29 all the way to asymmetric information issues so central to the many principal–agent situations that Smith discusses in Book V of WN .…”

Section: Conclusion: Why Schumpeter Got It Wrong and Why It Matters Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

SCHUMPETER’S ASSESSMENT OF ADAM SMITH AND THEWEALTH OF NATIONS: WHY HE GOT IT WRONG

Ortmann

Walraevens²,

Baranowski³

2019

J Hist Econ Thought

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his widely read and cited History of Economic Analysis (Schumpeter 1954), Joseph Alois Schumpeter dismissed Adam Smith’s Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (Smith 1976a) in a blunt and often ad hominem manner. In fact, he even questioned Smith’s intellectual mettle. We argue that Schumpeter’s assessment might have resulted from his failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Smith’s masterpiece (and the highly political character of its Book V), a failure possibly due to Schumpeter’s not having access to student notes of Smith’s lectures on rhetoric that surfaced only after Schumpeter’s death. We argue that Schumpeter’s failure to appreciate the rhetorical structure of Smith’s masterpiece is a prominent example of the consequences of not taking into account Smith’s rhetorical strategies and principles when trying to understand the man and his oeuvre.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion: Why Schumpeter Got It Wrong and Why It Matters Tmentioning

confidence: 99%

SCHUMPETER’S ASSESSMENT OF ADAM SMITH AND THEWEALTH OF NATIONS: WHY HE GOT IT WRONG

Ortmann

Walraevens²,

Baranowski³

2019

J Hist Econ Thought

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…1988) of which neuroeconomists seem curiously unaware. Overall, it seems that little progress has been made since Adam Smith lucidly discussed the nature and causes, and proposed a classification, of emotions (see Meardon and Ortmann 1996a, 1996b).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%