Henry George and Classical Growth Theory: A Significant Contribution to Modeling Scale Economies

It is widely recognized that the analysis of economic growth in Henry George's Progress and Poverty was considerably influenced by the British classical tradition, especially the writings of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, and John Stuart Mill. What has been less clearly perceived is that George made significant extensions to the classical theory. This paper's aim is to provide an interpretation, and to some extent a "rational reconstruction," of George's positive analysis, largely leaving aside the striking normative lessons he drew from it. George's unsatisfactory treatment of capital is disposed of in Section I, while Section II—the core of the paper—follows George's lead in aggregating capital and labor into a single productive factor which is employed in a given natural environment. Section III adds the complication of improvement in the arts of production, and Section IV deals briefly with George's views on land speculation. Section V assesses, comparing George with his contemporary Alfred Marshall.     

An Economics Classic and Plutology

A bstract . Henry George's Progress and Poverty , published a century ago, laid the foundation for a theory that attracted a worldwide following. He emphasized that political economy investigates the way a community produces wealth and the proportions in which that wealth will be distributed between individuals. In our day that has been called 'plutology' , a subdiscipline of political economy. Many of George's critics, then and now, act as apologists of the status quo, in society and in the academy. But the science's purview must be broader than plutology. Economics , to be relevant, must be useful in the solution of economic and social problems. In redirecting economists to their basic responsibility, George made a lasting contribution to economic science. He also was a perennial influence on economic scholar, even on some of his most antagonistic critics. But George is neglected because his doctrines were and are a threat to various establishments. However, by force of logic and through clarity of expression, he is a goad to the consciences of all folk of good will.     

Frank H. Knight's Criticism of Henry George

A bstract .   The ferocity of Knight's comments on Henry George may come as a surprise to those who are not familiar with his criticisms of other economists and philosophers. But, in fact, his criticisms of George are not due to specifically Knightian insights on George's approach, but rather reflect the different philosophical framework from which neoclassical economists like Knight think. At the core of Knight's disagreements with George is his neoclassical theory of rent, as the Georgist critics of Knight understand. The article reviews the philosophical, economic, and ethical ideas that underlay Knight's neoclassicism, and hence inform his criticism of George.     

Henry George's Ingenious Tax

A bstract . Henry George (1839–1897) has left an intellectual legacy which is shrouded under a cloak of controversy. "Professional economists who focused attention on the single-tax proposal and condemned Henry George's teaching, root and branch, were hardly just to him." (Schumpeter 1954, p. 865). This essay tries to do justice to Henry George from the point of view of economic theory and relevant economic practical questions in 1997. The single tax proposal is looked at from the point of view of constitutional economics, and the wider applicability of Henry George's basic notions is emphasized.     

Henry George Under the Microscope: Comments on "Henry George's Political Critics"

The annual supplement of the AJES for 2008 titled Henry George: Political Ideologue, Social Philosopher, and Economic Theorist had as its first and longest essay "Henry George's Political Critics" by Professor Michael Hudson. It offered a multitude of criticisms, most of which Prof. Hudson seemed to agree with. All purported to be criticisms of George as a political strategist, though some seem more to originate from Hudson's disagreement with theoretical positions George was bound to take. The purpose of this short paper is to show that Professor Hudson's long article fails to do what it seems intended to do. That is, it fails to show that trade unionists and especially socialists were "natural allies" of the Georgist movement, that it was George's fault that that they were not, and that George "allied" his movement irrevocably to "capital," rejecting its "natural allies."     

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 'Rerum Novarum'

A bstract . Students of the life and thought of Henry George have accepted too readily his own opinion, expressed in the Open Letter that he addressed to Pope Leo XIII in 1891, that the Pope's epoch making encyclical Rerum novarum was aimed at Georgism The disposition of the Open Letter in Vatican circles remains obscure, perhaps because the Holy Office had so recently decided that George's works were deserving of condemnation. But there is documentary support for only an allusion to George's views on property in the encyclical. Nor can the reinstatement of Father Edward McGlynn and the reappraisal of George that it signaled be attributed to the Open Letter. George's views may have had significant indirect influence, however, through (1) national land reform movements insofar as they affected the course of Catholic social thought , and (2) the discussion of Georgism as a form of socialism. These possibilities need to be investigated.     

"Though Not an Irishman"

A bstract . One of the most important elements to the rise of Henry George to international prominence in the 1880s was his-successful cultivation of a large Irish-American following. This was no small accomplishment, given the fact that George was not Irish Catholic, but rather English-American Protestant. Nonetheless, through his early interest in Ireland's troubles, marriage to Irish Catholic Annie McCloskey Fox, friendship with Patrick Ford and Michael Davitt, activism in the Irish Land League, travels through Ireland during the Land War as a correspondent for the Irish World , and linking the struggle of Irish peasants against economic injustice to a similar struggle of American workers, George developed an enormous Irish-American following. This relationship accounted for much of the early sales of Progress and Poverty and subsequent lecture opportunities, as well as making him known widely throughout the British Isles. The culmination of this phenomenon was George's sensational run for mayor of New York City in 1886.     

Selected Elements of Henry George's Legitimacy as an Economist

A bstract . Henry George's legitimacy as an economist has been denied in much of the literature of the history of economic thought and by some economists who were his approximate contemporaries. These denials have shaped the prevailing negative view of George's economics. An examination of selected representative evidence from George's work fails to support the negative view. George's positions on "The Study of Political Economy," eloquently presented in his 1877 speech to the faculty at the University of California, ate consistent with (and predate) "accepted,""orthodox,""legitimate" views of political economy expressed a decade and more later by J. Laurence Laughlin and Charles F. Dunbar in early classic articles that signified the emergence of economics as an identifiable profession in the United States. Other evidence reveals that George avoided the Ricardian error of failing to understand the role of factor and product substitution in the process of market equilibrium adjustments.     

Henry George, Sun Yat-sen and China: More Than Land Policy Was Involved

A bstract . Sun Yat-sen repeatedly acknowledged the influence of Henry George , and this influence went beyond details of land policy. Significant parts of George's work involved his extensive references to China his diagnoses of China's ills, his vision of a possible better economic order , and his strong attack on the Malthusian theory. These too influenced Sun.     

Seeking Institutionalist Signposts in The Work of Henry George

A bstract . When one seeks institutionalist signposts in works published before the time of Thorstein Veblen, Henry George is often overlooked. This oversight on the part of institutionalists is understandable given George's emphasis on " natural laws," individualism, religious teachings and his defense of the market system. Orthodox economists have also ignored these signposts as a result of their rejection of institutionalism. They have rejected George's work in general because of his attack on the economics profession and his challenge to the status quo. While George is usually not classified an institutionalist, there are, however, definite institutionalist signposts to be found in his work. George recognized the ceremonial and pecuniary nature of the economics profession and analyzed the institutional foundation of property. Furthermore, George was a social reformer and understood the discretionary and normative nature of the economy.     

Comments on Warren Samuels's "Why the Georgist Movement Has Not Succeeded"

A BSTRACT . The 16^th Amendment and the formation of the European Union were major political/economic reforms that should be seen as affirmations of the fundamental principles and teachings of Henry George. That these are not matters of interest to the self-defined Georgist movement reveals an excessively narrow focus of that movement and suggests its members' unfamiliarity with much of George's teachings.     

Henry George and Europe

A bstract . The progressive democratic social philosophy of a 19th century American economist, Henrys George , has had a far-reaching effect on some European intellectual and political leaders. Not all adopted his practical proposal, the single land value tax as a substitute for other taxes. But the British Liberal party , a section of the British Labor party and Danish smallholders did. George's ideas were absorbed into the long standing European land reform tradition and he became the initiator and theoretical founder of the modern movement there, as Heinrich Erman , the German legal scholar, held. It is a mistake to say that the French Physiocrats anticipated George; their produit net was a tax on output, not highest potential use and was aimed to achieve stability , not development. Europeans see George and Georgism the same as Americans but in a different context, that of Natural rights.     

A Property Rights Paradox: George and Rothbard on the Conservation of Environmental Resources

A bstract . Murray N. Rothbard is recognized as one of the most articulate modern critics of Henry George's land value tax. A leading libertarian thinker, Rothbard condemns George's recommendation that government act to affect private transactions in land, arguing that such interventions infringe on previously defined private property rights. However, Rothbard's social system has no explicit mechanism for accommodating the emergence of tradeable property rights to newly recognized environmental resources. In effect, Rothbard calls for controls on such resources—no trading. Henry George, on the other hand, provides for the evolution of new property rights and their emergence into private markets. The paradox here is that George's solution to the property rights question might accommodate the social yearnings of one of his most severe critics, Murray N. Rothbard.     

Riches,Real Estate,and Resistance: How Land Speculation,Debt, and Trade Monopolies Led to the American Revolution

Why did the colonies of North America rebel against England in 1775? More than ideas of political freedom were at stake. It is unlikely that the colonists would have demanded independence if powerful land speculators, merchants, and urban artisans had not joined forces to protect their economic interests. England had levied taxes on the colonies, and the colonists had successfully overturned those measures. Taxation was a superficial problem. But in 1773, when England imposed a commercial monopoly on tea sales, and in 1774, when it cut off settlement in western lands, the colonists saw no choice but to rebel and create their own nation. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Richard Henry Lee, and other wealthy Virginians who led the American Revolution stood to lose their huge investment in potential land sales if England maintained control of the colonies.     

Henry George on Thomas Robert Malthus

A bstract . The present era marks the 100th anniversary of the death of Henry George and the 200th anniversary of the publication of Thomas Robert Malthu's Essay in the Principles of Population. In observance of these historic dates, this paper examines George's critique of the work of Malthus and explores the ideological functions that both men served. George contended that Malthusian population theory served as a means of social control by supporting the landed class and strongly opposing ameliorative public policy. George, on the other hand, lashed out against the private ownership of land and advocated policies of equality and social justice .     

Henry George and the Shakers: Evolution of Communal Attitudes Towards Land Ownership

A bstract . The influence of Henry George on the Shakers has been misunderstood. The most prominent late nineteenth century Shaker elder was Frederick W. Evans , brother of George Henry Evans , the land reformer of the second quarter of the century. Similarities in the programs of G. H. Evans and Henry George have been recognized, but the two proposed different kinds of land reforms. Evans promoted quantitative restrictions on land ownership , while George was known for his advocacy of a single tax on land. The New York Shakers, as large land owners, successfully resisted early G. H. Evans type land reforms. Later, Shakers led by F. W. Evans embraced Henry George-type policy proposals and supported George for mayor of New York City. E. W. Evans himself, however, conflated Henry George's proposals with those of his brother, never realizing the contradiction between the two, much less resolving it. The consequences of Shaker ambivalence toward their large landholdings persisted well into the twentieth century.     

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.     

Henry George

A bstract . It is contended in Part I 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 George's and Weber's concerns and conceptions is detailed. Part 11 (in the April 1995 issue) 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's Labor Theory of Value: He Saw the Entrepreneurs and Workers as Employers of Capital and Land, and Not the Reverse

A bstract . Henry George , the 19th century American economist and social philosopher , saw the problem of protecting the working peoples' wages and Jobs one of distributive justice. He attacked as fallacious the idea that equality of opportunity to work was a "privilege" accorded to labor. The protectionist system , he held, was based on the antidemocratic notion that "the many are called to serve and the few to rule." The paternalism of protection, whether in the domestic or the world economy , is "the pretense of tyranny," he argued. He holds that labor, including workers and entrepreneurs, and not landholders, or owners of capital, is the source of all economic value. Labor, he reasoned, "employs capital," and not the reverse. George's theory of value was an improvement on Adam Smith's , putting into it a greater emphasis on the importance of land in the analysis of the distribution of wealth. But it was a production cost theory, with all its problems and advantages.