Henry George and Social Theory

A bstract . It was contended in Part 1 (in the January, 1995 issue) that Henry George should be recognized as an original American social theorist. He was a pioneering postmodern contributor to social theory who criticized the linear idea of progress and anticipated Durkheim's concept of the "collective consciousness."
He recognized the fateful consequences of the separation of political economy into "economics" and "sociology." These include the loss of moral considerations from political economy , and the rise of a sociology that culminates in the proliferation of meaningless abstractions because it is premised on amoral economic assumptions. His theory of speculative land value as the cause of civilizations decline is recapitulated and shown in a larger context. The congruence between the concerns and conceptions of George and Weber is detailed.
Part II concludes by tracing the tragic consequences for modern American social theory, from Spencer to Parsons , that result from confusing the value of commodities with the value of land, of private wealth with social value.     

Henry George and Europe:

A bstract Henry George played a tremendous role in the development and growth of the British Liberal party and of British Liberalism, one no less significant than his role in that of British non-Marxian socialism One of the Liberal leaders who gained a place in history, Joseph Chamberlain, had already been a land reformer before he learned about Georgism Chamberlain used the Georgist analysis, but he and the other 19th century Radical Liberals worked up a program for a broader distribution of landed property, not for the abolition of the private land monopoly. The same tactic in Ireland entrenched private land monopoly thereby making many renters small holders But George also supplied the analysis and the context of the Liberal campaign And later Liberal leaders–notably David Lloyd George, Winston Churchill (as well as Liberals in the Labour Party. Philip Snowden, Herbert Morrison, Ramsay MacDonald and Josiah Wedgwood) –came close to making the taxation of land values the law of the kingdom     

Henry George and Europe:

A bstract Henry George's Progress and Poverty was translated into German and published in Germany in 1881, a little more than a year after its publication in America But it was not through George's own words that his ideas first became known there Germany already had land reformers , organized in small societies They made his teachings known However, unlike the case in Britain, Germany's leftists did not welcome George's land reform ideas True, Karl Marx recognized and wrote about the role the land question played in the exploitation of labor and in his third volume of Capital took basic positions parallel to George's, it was published long after Progress and Poverty The hostility of Wilhelm Ltebknecbt toward land reform reflected the German public's disinterest in the land question and may explain why Marx concentrated on appealing to the urban industrial worker     

Henry George and the Classical Scientific Research Program: The Economics of Republican Millennialism

Abstract . Henry George's classicism was evident in his acceptance of “hard core” assumptions inherent in classical economic analysis, notably that rational self-interested behavior exercise in competitive markets maximized economic welfare. However, George's “stage theory,” the “Law of Human Progress,” led him to reject the classical nexus between social and economic welfare. The emergence of an exchange economy improved efficiency and economic welfare, but institutional changes lagged behind, particularly the redefinition of property rights. Consequently, economic growth based on land as a private rather than public good widened the gap between economic efficiency and social welfare. Hence George's paradox of poverty amidst progress. George resolved the equity efficiency conflict by treating land as a public good. Then, the sale of monopoly rights to land through the “single tax” on land rents captured the difference between the private and social costs of land use.     

Henry George and Organized Labor:

A bstract . Henry George supported labor unions and was proud of his membership in the Printers' Union. But he did not regard them as the final solution of labor exploitation. He championed labor as one of the producing classes. His foray into politics as the candidate of organized labor's third party was characteristic; he had had much involvement in politics earlier. Although he supported labor's immediate demands, he sought mainly to use his candidacy to build a constituency for the single tax. Samuel Gompers , then head of the American Federation of Labor , at first worked for George's election but came to the belief that the unions alone should direct and control their political efforts. This view prevailed, though he and George remained good friends. But it is now a question whether Gompers' policy, at this time, serves labor's best interests.     

Sun Yat-sen and Henry George:

A bstract . Of Sun Yat-sen's "Three Principles of the People," the third principle, namely the People's Livelihood, forms the ultimate goal for social welfare. In this principle Dr. Sun tried to syncretize the economic theories of the West and adapt them within the Chinese context.
The equalization of land ownership through taxation of self-assessed land values, and the land value increment tax are the most essential ingredients of the third principle. Underlying Dr. Sun's concept of equalization of land ownership is the unearned increment theory of Henry George.
Dr. Sun conceived of agrarian reform as basic to the solution of the livelihood problem. Henry George also saw the cause of distress and destitution in the defective land tenure structure and the monopoly of land.     

Henry George and George Bernard Shaw: Comparison and Contrast

A bstract . Henry George , the American economist and social philosopher , and George Bernard Shaw , the British playwright and social reformer , were two famous personalities of the last quarter of the 19th century, each a prophet in his own way. The two men probably never met, though Shaw credited George's oratory as well as his classic. Progress and Poverty , with awakening his interest in economic issues, and to his last days acknowledged his debt to George. Both were deeply committed to ending poverty. But there the similarity ended—George was devoted to ethical democracy, Shaw to socialist dictatorship. George saw cooperative individualism as the goal of social reconstruction; Shaw dreamed of a Superman, and fancied himself a supporter of the Soviet dictator, Joseph Stalin, and of Soviet Russian'communism.'Shaw saw the purpose of life as "being used for a (mighty) purpose;" George saw it as blazing a trail for'progressive humanity,'cooperating with the Creator in creating a moral world.     

Henry George and Henry M. Hyndman, I:

Abstract . Henry George, an individualistic American reformer and economist, and Henry M. Hyndman, an English democratic Marxist, formed a tenuous alliance in 1882. It was based on their mutual advocacy of land nationalization and Irish land tenure reform. During the next few years, the tensions derived from differing weltanschauungen and from differing programmatic directions gradually weakened their mutual bond, despite a continual, but grudging, mutual personal regard.     

The Henry George Theorem and the Entrepreneurial Process: Turning Henry George on his Head

This chapter offers an interpretation of the Henry George Theorem (HGT) that brings it squarely into the study and analysis of entrepreneurship somewhat loosening its ties to the subfield of urban economics. I draw on the pioneering work of Spencer Heath whose insights about the viability of proprietary communities were developed further by his grandson, Spencer Heath MacCallum who, in 1970, recognized that private real estate developers sometimes make their capital gains (mostly) by creating useful public spaces that others enjoy. I also draw inspiration from Fred Foldvary's effort in 1994 to synthesize the pubic goods problem in economics with the Henry George Theorem in urban economics. While the real estate owner—developer does emerge on my pages in a somewhat more favourable light than as originally portrayed by Henry George in his Progress and Poverty in 1879, I offer a realistic appraisal of the duplicitous behaviours required of such entrepreneurs. in the context of the modern regulatory state. Real estate development remains a 'hot button' item in local politics, and real estate developers must become genuine 'political entrepreneurs' if they are to complete their projects in a timely way and capture business profits. It is a complicated story that the HGT helps make intelligible in terms of human action.     

On Henry George, the Austrians, and Neoclassical Choice Theory

A bstract . Henry George and the Austrians disagreed on whether land is inherently different from other factors. Beyond this, they had much in common. The paper specifically argues that the similarities between George and the Austrians are derived from a similar underlying approach to choice. Both relied on a subjective choice framework which yields a foundation that is quite different from that of Walrasian neoclassical economics. As a result, George and the Austrians held similar views on innovation and progress. Moreover, these views are incompatible with neoclassical choice theory which is not really equipped to deal with innovation.     

Henry George and Jane Jacobs on the Sources of Economic Growth

Henry George and Jane Jacobs shared a remarkably similar vision of the economic functioning of cities and of the sources of the economic growth of cities, despite having differing primary objectives. George wrote Progress and Poverty and subsequent works to persuade the public of the equity and efficiency of public capture of economic rents of land and other natural resources and elimination of taxes on labor and capital. Jacobs acquired fame for The Death and Life of Great American Cities in which she challenged the prevailing orthodoxy of the urban planning profession. Both saw the density and diversity of economic and cultural activities in cities as a facilitator of innovation and entrepreneurship in all aspects of civilization. Both also recognized the power of the price system in coordinating the activities of independent decision makers and the importance of trade for economic growth.     

The Economics of Henry George: A Review Essay

This is a welcome addition to the literature on Henry George. Bryson seeks to “rehabilitate” George—by highlighting his major achievements, by explaining why academic economists have rejected or neglected him, and by showing how nonetheless George has had a major but little‐acknowledged impact on economic thought.     

Henry George the Classical Model and Technological Change:*The Ignored Alternative to the Single Tax in Progress and Poverty

Abstract . Henry George's vision of land monopolization as the source of growing rentier income was compatible with all elements in the predominant Ricardian-Millian classical distribution model except the rent-reducing effects of technological change and Malthusian population growth as the catalyst underlying income distribution. Since George also rejected Malthusianism on ethical and philosophical grounds, his analysis focused on the autonomous nature of rent income with respect to population and technological change. George analyzed the distributive consequences of both increasing technology with constant population, and constant technology with increasing population. In the latter case, George, in an ultimate rejection of Malthusianism, demonstrated an optimistic increasing returns to scale of population growth. However, although capable, George never considered a logical extension of his analysis, namely, the dynamic case of changing population, technology, and increasing returns. This analysis would have contradicted his predictions of the trend in relative income shares and the uniqueness of the single tax as the solution to social and economic distress.     

Henry George's Contribution to Modern Environmental Policy:

A bstract . Many natural resources are inefficiently used in advanced western economies. Overuse of common property resources such as air occurs. The assignment of property rights through grandfathering established uses can have disincentive effects as an entry barrier to new industry and allow the continuation of pernicious uses. A Henry George type alternative remedial system of legal and tax treatment is developed. It systematically covers all natural resources and their deteriorations, as well as improvements. This updating will be extremely useful to everyone concerned with ecology. Also the task of industrial siting can be accomplished so as to ensure an efficient use of natural resources. Present problems of dealing with pollution and hazardous waste sites under tort law would be avoided. This part of the two-part paper covers the application of the theory. The last issue of this Journal presented the basic theoretical considerations.     

Henry George on Property Rights: Reply to John Pullen

John Pullen argues that Henry George's proposal to make land common property is inconsistent with his proposal to tax rent. This reply argues that George's two formulations are consistent, and that Pullen has confused common property with state property. On the other hand, Pullen's conception of property as composed of a basket of rights focuses attention on the question of whether, as trustee of the common property, a Georgist regime should be understood to have certain rights (and obligations) to constrain private land use decisions.     

Henry George on Land Ownership: A Comment on Pullen

Did George alienate many by presenting his reform program as the institution of a new form of restricted land possession rather than as the retention of traditional ownership with a substantial land tax imposed? It seems doubtful, yet the distinction merits further exploration and the peculiar and hard‐to‐implement nature of the tax and the difficulty of reconciling it with George's distrust of government needs to be stressed. Ideally, George might have preferred complete government ownership of land but his policy proposals were pragmatically adapted to the realities of his own society. The extent of the egalitarianism and aid to the landless implied in his program is questioned.     

Using Jane Jacobs and Henry George to Tame Gentrification

The solutions that Jane Jacobs proposed to improve neighborhoods created a paradoxical problem: improvement increased demand for the amenities of the area, which caused land prices to rise. The net result was at least partial displacement of the old residents of the neighborhood with new ones. Jane Jacobs has been criticized for ignoring gentrification, but she was clearly aware of this process and tried to find means to counter it. By combining the ideas of Henry George about land taxation with the ideals of Jane Jacobs about neighborhood diversity, we can mitigate the negative effects of gentrification and direct the energy of market forces into producing a greater supply of desirable neighborhoods.     

Henry George and the Classical Scientific Research Program: George's Modification of It and His Real Significance for Future Generations

Abstract . Henry George's revision of classical economics was based on a new “hard core” assumption linking efficiency, equity, and social welfare to a revised concept of property rights in land. However, rather than create new core supporting “protective belt” theories, George either accepted or, when necessary, modified existing classical theories especially those which threatened his new hard core, for example, classical “wages-fund” theory. Consequently, George's adaptation of the Ricardian “stationary state” model was less accurate than mainstream classical economics in its predictions concerning the behavior of the distributive shares of income over time, and the effects of technological change on economic growth and economic welfare. Without its own protective belt, George's classicism became a special case of classical economics whose value, nevertheless, existed in its effective criticism of classical property rights theory.