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 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.     

Henry George and Europe: Ireland, the First Target of His Efforts to Spread His Doctrines Internationally, Disappointed Him

Abstract . Henry George made several crusading forays into the British Empire at the time of its zenith. But the first, to Ireland, proved a disappointment. George saw Ireland as an object lesson in the land question and at first It was uppermost in the minds of the 600,000 tenant farmers. But the 20,000 landlords agreed to an amelioration, and for decades, republicanism replaced land reform in Irish social history. George misread the temper of the times; he saw Ireland's political future better served by becoming a self-governing unit of a league of British nations. “Integration” was the trend of the times, the American social philosopher insisted. Ireland (with the exception of Ulster) became a dominion in 1921 but it withdrew from the British Commonwealth in 1949 to become a sovereign republic. George was not wholly wrong in emphasizing economics over politics. In 1955 Ireland, now Eire, entered the United Nations where it wielded influence all out of proportion to its resources and economic development became its over-riding issue.     

Henry George's Theory of State's Agenda: The Origins of His Ideas on Economic Policy in Adam Smith's Moral Theory

Abstract . The tension between Henry George's reformism and his laissezfaire liberalism was resolved through a system of natural liberty George derived from the relation between Adam Smith's ethics and economics. Crucial for George's nonutilitarian philosophy of government was the interdependence between the moral sense (sympathy) and the prevailing socioeconomic order. In the appropriate institutional environment, the role of the government was diminished since the pervasive moral sense insured justice by monitoring the individual's pursuit of economic self-interest. In contrast, a defective socio economic order required government intervention. For example, land monopoly and the maldistribution of income undermined the role of sympathy, promoted excessive self interest and the breakdown of the system of natural liberty. Government action through the single tax eliminated the “fear of want,” restored an operative moral sense and guaranteed justice in society. Under these conditions, government can provide additional services for a growing society without being susceptible to “corrupt and tyrannous” behavior.     

Henry George and the Ethics of Economics

Abstract . Henry George's Progress and Poverty (1879) is a great ethical masterpiece. Its moral tone distinguishes the book. More than an economics test, it is a philosophic quest for justice, an impassioned declaration of the rule of natural law. Indignantly attacking the contention that economics has no place for natural law or ethics, George exclaims: “She [economics] has been degraded and shackled; her truths dislocated; her harmonies ignored.” On the contrary, George stresses, political economy (economics) is a science, and like all sciences, is governed by natural law. Furthermore, it is basically “moral.” Science must, of necessity, always lead to ethics. Natural law must, of necessity, always lead to morality, or justice.“The law of human progress, what is it but the moral law?” George asks. “Unless its foundation be laid in justice the social structure cannot stand.” The social ill that perpetuates poverty and the manifold evils it causes is private ownership of land and the private privilege of collecting its rent. “The fundamental law of nature, that the enjoyment by man shall be consequent upon his exertion, is thus violated.”     

Curing Slums: The Jane Jacobs Way and the Henry George Way

Henry George and Jane Jacobs were both self‐taught public figures who shared an appreciation of the density, productivity, diversity, and cultural creativity of big cities. A century separated them, during which architects and planners designed cities according to abstract principles, but George and Jacobs expected the creative potential of a city to emerge from its inhabitants, not from a central planner. Although the interests and concerns of George and Jacobs overlapped on only a few topics, they both believed that slum dwellers could solve their own problems, given the right tools. For Jacobs, the solution to dilapidated housing lay not in bulldozing neighborhoods, but in rehabilitating them through a process she called “unslumming,” a gradual process of self‐improvement that has at times been accused of being gentrification. Henry George offered a different solution, involving taxation of land values, one that did not focus on particular neighborhoods and thus avoided the paradox that local improvements would raise the price of real estate too high for local residents to stay. An example is given of how George's solution actually worked in the Rosslyn neighborhood of Arlington, Virginia. In this case, no change in tax policy was needed to bring about a local economic renaissance in the 1960s, merely the realignment of property assessments that correctly reflected the actual value of land.     

Henry George, Protectionism and the Welfare of the Working Class

A bstract . Robert J. Rafalko's recent essay in this J ournal argued that Henry George provided a view of protectionism which was at once novel and relevant to contemporary debate in economic theory. In response, after arguing that George offered a basically conventional approach to protection and free trade , one which did not deviate substantially from the major body of theory available in the 1880s, this paper goes on to contend that the present debate surrounds assumptions and issues which were not considered in any detail by George. The general work of Henry George was certainly novel and of relevance today, but this may not be said of his position on tariffs and free trade.     

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 Comparable Worth: Hypothetical Markets as a Stimulus for Reforming the Labor Market

Abstract . Despite significant improvements in the status of women, a significant gap between the wages of males and females persists. Women's work is not paid according to its comparable worth. Henry George, the 19th century economist and social philosopher, advocated payment according to contribution to production in a freely competitive labor market. The present is an exploitative one distorted by employers’market power, offering no free choice among alternative occupations. When women can prove, as they do, that sex discrimination has played some part in their historically lower compensation rate, the market is shown to be not fair and efficient. Hence non-market decision making is demanded through vigorous and unrelenting prosecution enforcing the equal pay statute of 1964.     

Henry George and the Catholic View of Morality and the Common Good, I

A bstract . On the issuance of the first of the modern social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum , Henry George, the American economist and social philosopher , criticized its author, Pope Leo XIII , for defending a limited right to own land and for limiting the right of private ownership of labor products. George did so by reasoning from Locke's ground that each human has a property right in one's person. George distinguished between possession (and use) and ownership of land on the ground of the common good. That required equality of mutual opportunity , which George would achieve by a Single Tax on all land values. Land reform , he held, would lead to moral reform , and thus to a society based on justice. Pope Leo goes beyond the Schoolmen in stressing a natural right to property, including land, which he asserted must be regarded as sacred. This right, he said, was not absolute, but subject to be used, according to God's Will, for the benefit of others. George looked to a change in the economic structure by reform of land tenure and use to establish a just social order ; Leo to religion and the church , the government, moral individuals and voluntary associations to do so.     

浅谈主体技术及其引入的意义

本文首先介绍了面向主体方法,其次通过几个方面阐述影响软件开发复杂性的因素,最后得出引入主体技术的意义。     

卷烟成品“整托盘联运”实施方案及前景的探讨

剖析了整托盘联运中存在的管理、技术难题,详细分析了这些问题的成因、解决办法,强调从社会大物流的角度来统筹其中的问题,通过管理制度的配套化来推广整托盘联运.     

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.     

Protection or Free Trade: An Analysis of the Ideas of Henry George on International Commerce and Wages

Abstract . Henry George, the 19th century American economist and social philosopher, abandoned protectionism and became a free trader when he engaged in the great tariff debate of the last quarter of his century. In the controversy, a true follower of Adam Smith, he anticipated neoclassical positions on the tariff question, particularly the Stolper-Samuelson theory which predicts that free trade will increase the prices of the abundant factors of production relative to the prices of the scarce factors. George's concern in the great debate was labor; he was convinced that only certain interests representing capital or resource ownership would benefit from protection at the cost of labor and the enterprises in fields with more abundant resources. But the free trade effort failed and in 1894 the Wilson-Gorman tariff increased the exactions to the highest level yet. The protectionist tide, only slowed by the Woodrow Wilson Administration, was not reversed until after World War II.     

Henry George and Europe: As Dissident Economist and Path-breaking Philosopher, He was a Catalyst for British Social Reform

Abstract . Henry George's influence was greater in the United Kingdom than in the United States. The 80s and 90s there were particularly favorable for the reception of his revolutionary ideas. Though, thanks to such thinkers as Alfred Russell Wallace and James and John Stuart Mill, a land reform movement already existed, its sudden rise to national significance was due to George. George's writing and speaking skills and his dedication moved many serious citizens into the political Left and heavily influenced men and women who became leaders of British non-Marxian socialism, at the formation and consolidation of their movement. While George's followers broke with both the Wallace and socialist movements, George's rhetorical talents awakened the broad circles of thinking people to a consciousness of the full range of the social question.     

“不知有之”:未来企业管理之应然境界

关于企业的管理思想,大致可以分为"有为"和"无为"两种。但直至今日,由于诸多缘由所限,我们对于老子"无为而治"智慧的运用还一直处于初级阶段——"少为",而不能把"无为而治"在管理中所能达到的最高境界——"不知有之"完全体现出来。为此,文章就未来企业的一些设想以及未来企业的最高管理层应如何"无为"才能实现"不知有之"的管理境界进行了系统的探析,希冀能为当代企业管理提供一个崭新的思考视角。