Adam Smith, Allyn Young, Amartya Sen and the Role of the State

R. Chandra
{"title":"Adam Smith, Allyn Young, Amartya Sen and the Role of the State","authors":"R. Chandra","doi":"10.1080/10370196.2020.1863005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This paper examines the views of Adam Smith, Allyn Young and Amartya Sen on the role of the state. Smith has been widely interpreted as advocating non-interference in economic matters with the state confining itself to three basic tasks of defence, justice and public works. However, this traditional view gives a misleading impression that Smith was a champion of laissez faire. We examine and develop Young’s contention that the main message from Wealth of Nations is not laissez faire but competition. Interpreted thus, a more active role for government is consistent with Smith. Young favoured neither laissez faire nor excessive intervention, but viewed the role of the state in the context of the stage of a society’s development. Amartya Sen’s stress on entitlements is also consistent with Smith’s stress on distributive justice and the Smith-Young emphasis on the public interest (or communal welfare). The more recent approaches to development such as political entanglement and complexity economics view the dichotomy of state versus market as false as both have to join hands in the coevolution of appropriate institutions to solve communal problems of economic life.","PeriodicalId":143586,"journal":{"name":"History of Economics Review","volume":"130 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History of Economics Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10370196.2020.1863005","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract This paper examines the views of Adam Smith, Allyn Young and Amartya Sen on the role of the state. Smith has been widely interpreted as advocating non-interference in economic matters with the state confining itself to three basic tasks of defence, justice and public works. However, this traditional view gives a misleading impression that Smith was a champion of laissez faire. We examine and develop Young’s contention that the main message from Wealth of Nations is not laissez faire but competition. Interpreted thus, a more active role for government is consistent with Smith. Young favoured neither laissez faire nor excessive intervention, but viewed the role of the state in the context of the stage of a society’s development. Amartya Sen’s stress on entitlements is also consistent with Smith’s stress on distributive justice and the Smith-Young emphasis on the public interest (or communal welfare). The more recent approaches to development such as political entanglement and complexity economics view the dichotomy of state versus market as false as both have to join hands in the coevolution of appropriate institutions to solve communal problems of economic life.
亚当·斯密,阿林·杨,阿马蒂亚·森与国家的角色
摘要本文考察了亚当·斯密、阿林·杨和阿马蒂亚·森关于国家角色的观点。斯密被广泛解读为主张国家不干涉经济事务,并将自己限制在国防、司法和公共工程三项基本任务上。然而,这种传统观点给人一种误导的印象,即史密斯是自由放任主义的拥护者。我们研究并发展了杨的论点,即《国富论》的主要信息不是自由放任,而是竞争。这样解释的话,政府扮演更积极的角色与斯密的观点是一致的。杨既不赞成自由放任,也不赞成过度干预,而是在社会发展阶段的背景下看待国家的作用。阿马蒂亚·森对权利的强调也与史密斯对分配正义的强调以及史密斯-杨对公共利益(或公共福利)的强调是一致的。最近的发展研究方法,如政治纠缠和复杂经济学,认为国家与市场的二分法是错误的,因为两者必须携手共同发展适当的制度,以解决经济生活中的共同问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信