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.     

Henry George's Land Reform: A Comment on Pullen

Henry George described his proposal to tax land rent as tantamount to abolition of the private ownership of land . However, Pullen's suggestion that it might better be described as conditional, modified, or restricted ownership falls foul of the fact that all ownership is conditional, modified, or restricted in some sense. Whereas, for George, the private ownership of labor products may be positively justified on grounds of equity, and is subject only to conditions that apply to ownership in general, the private ownership of land may be permitted , but only on grounds of social utility, and only if a radical condition (social appropriation of most of its rent) is met that satisfies the demands of equity.     

Henry George:

ABSTRACT While generally known today for his famous proposal for a Single Tax, Henry George has not been widely recognized as one of the first economists to write about the possibility of political market failure. Based on his appreciation for the allocational efficiency of markets and his suspicion of government intervention, George was an early advocate of public choice ideas who repeatedly warned of the dangers of rent seeking.     

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 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 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 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 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's Influence on John Bates Clark:

A bstract John Bates Clark's marginal productivity theory of income distribution has been portrayed as being derived from David Ricardo . This article traces the influence Henry George had on that theory in providing a standard for measuring labor's addition to aggregate output as comparable to what could be earned on no-rent land . Following George, Jobn Bates Clark extended that standard to include no-rent capital.     

The Death of Henry George: Scholar or Statesman?

A bstract . Henry George was determined to complete his book on political economy (subsequently published as The Science of Political Economy ) but in March 1897 his health began to deteriorate. Ignoring doctors'warnings George continued to work on his project and in June of 1897, George, as if not having enough to do, accepted the nomination to run for Mayor of Greater New York. At the night of his acceptance of the nomination George was already thin of body; and his face was ashen. Five days before the election, on October 28, 1897, George succumbed to the inevitable and was buried on November 1, 1897. His passing provoked a hundred thousand citizens to pass before his bier, and in so doing the crowd vindicated George s lifelong idea of the brotherhood of man.     

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.