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 Radical Endeavor: Joseph Chamberlain and the Emergence of Municipal Socialism in Birmingham

Joseph Chamberlain, an industrial entrepreneur, proponent of the “civic gospel,” and emerging British Radical Liberal leader of the 1870s, established Birmingham as one of the most influential models for municipal socialism in Europe and North America. Arguing gas and water ought to be in public hands and city officials ought to take a role in securing inhabitants’ health, he set the stage for continued mayoral activism and municipal socialism in the late 19^th and early 20^th century.     

Henry George, Emile de Laveleye, and the Issue of Peasant Proprietorship

A bstract .   In Emile de Laveleye's demonstration that communal landholding was universally a characteristic of primitive societies, Henry George saw evidence of a golden age before the development of private ownership of land. Though he agreed with George that unequal access to land was a major cause of the social evil of poverty, de Laveleye did not consider it the sole cause of poverty. Where George would nationalize land rent, de Laveleye would make private ownership more widespread; and he faulted George for giving too little attention to the question of how government would use the revenue from a land tax, and for failing to consider the concentration of capital as a cause of poverty.     

Henry George and Europe

A bstract . The basic ideas of Henry George , 19th century American economist and social philosopher, were not novel in Denmark , which had a tradition of land value taxation and free trade. But they had special appeal for its smallholder farmers. They demanded that George's principles be applied more fully, getting all tax revenues from the land 's unimproved value, so that taxes on buildings, personal property and wages could be abolished. Viggo Ullman 's Danish-Norwegian translation of Progress and Poverty won the commitment of folk school movement leaders and the intelligentsia. In 1903 large landowners gained control of the Liberal Party and proceeded to abolish the traditional land tax, producer of up to 50 percent of State revenues. The Radical Liberals split and took over, to some extent carrying out George's taxation principles. In 1919 a Georgist party, the "Retsforbundet" was founded; it won the balance of power in 1957. But lack of finances and organizing ability and growing voter apathy ended its progress.     

Léon Walras and Social Justice

A bstract . Léon Walras strongly believed that without an equitable distribution of wealth there could be no social justice. Though he defended the right of private property , he considered that land was a special case and that it belonged to all the community. His social reform involved the nationalization of land , the abolition of taxation on wages , the curbing of monopoly power , and the promotion of a strong cooperative movement. He insisted that the only way the working class could regain their freedom was by becoming property owners. The influence of Henry George on Walras' thinking is obvious. They both shared the same humanitarian ideals, and both believed in a capitalist system working side by side with the social reforms they advocated.     

Why Do British Unions Oppose Privatisation?

British trade unions have always been opposed to the removal of state monopolies from the public sector. George Watson examines the inconsistency of union attitudes, since monopoly tends to favour the powerful and rich at the expense of the weak and poor. British trade unionists, he says, should re-assess their unreasoned opposition to privatisation if they claim to serve the interests of their members.     

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.     

Henry George's Land Reform: The Distinction between Private Ownership and Private Possession

Henry George stated that the taxation of land rent would amount to the abolition of the institution of private ownership of land, thereby alienating all those who, whether for economic or ideological reasons, regard the private ownership of land as essential for social order and progress. George believed that under his proposed reform the private ownership of land would be replaced by private possession. But his distinction between ownership and possession appears to have been based on a misconception of the nature of private ownership. His proposed reform could have been more logically described as a conditional, modified, or restricted private ownership of land, rather than as the abolition of private ownership of land.     

Henry George's Political Critics

A bstract .   Twelve political criticisms of George were paramount after he formed his own political party in 1887: (1) his refusal to join with other reformers to link his proposals with theirs, or to absorb theirs into his own campaign; (2) his singular focus on ground rent to the exclusion of other forms of monopoly income, such as that of the railroads, oil and mining trusts; (3) his almost unconditional support of capital, even against labor; (4) his economic individualism rejecting a strong role for government; (5) his opposition to public ownership or subsidy of basic infrastructure; (6) his refusal to acknowledge interest-bearing debt as the twin form of rentier income alongside ground rent; (7) the scant emphasis he placed on urban land and owner-occupied land; (8) his endorsement of the Democratic Party's free-trade platform; (9) his rejection of an academic platform to elaborate rent theory; (10) the narrowness of his theorizing beyond the land question; (11) the alliance of his followers with the right wing of the political spectrum; and (12) the hope that full taxation of ground rent could be achieved gradually rather than requiring a radical confrontation involving a struggle over control of government.     

Apprehending the Social Philosophy of Henry George

A bstract .   It is the purpose of this essay to consider but three questions regarding the social philosophy of Henry George that have to now received insufficient attention: George's views with respect to the nationalization of land, the efficacy of socialism, and the place of the individual. One may conclude that George is ostensibly an individualist, who nonetheless declares an intent to limit individuality by social restraint; he cherishes the ideals of utopian socialism, while denouncing the directed order; he advocates the nationalization of land, but then is willing to accept private ownership (albeit without aggrandizement). Much is to be done in coming to terms with the fullness of the proposals offered by this social activist and radical philosopher.     

Henry George's Impact at Home and Abroad: He Won the Workers of Marx's Adopted Country But Through Leninism Marxism Has Won Half the World

Abstract . Henry George, the American economist and social philosopher, considered it an anomoly that, under modern industrial conditions, progress and poverty should march together. He recognized that the juxtaposition of wealth and want was a worldwide phenomenon and traced its cause to monopoly, particularly the monopoly of land and natural resources. Realizing that current taxes on consumption and production were disincentives to capital and labor, he proposed that governments tax the only true surplus, economic rent, through land value taxation. This would enable the people to reassert their common title to the land—the earth. His message was accorded a more favorable reception abroad than at home. Karl Marx wrote Das Kapital in England but it was George, not Marx, who appealed to the British workers. Yet it was Marxism that swept half the world into State socialism, conquering by political power and bayonet-Leninism while George's followers pursued the democratic approach of public education.     

On the Centenary of Progress and Poverty

A bstract . Henry George was more fortunate than many authors of classics. His Progress and Poverty won understanding, appreciation and recognition from the start. The book presented a theory of the business cycle based on monopoly of which theorists must take account. It also represented the peak of the development of the classical school. George shared with the school's great figures, particularly Adam Smith and David Ricardo , a Utopian vision of a free economy. But George went beyond them in envisioning a free society in a new moral order; he was one of the great libertarian philosophers. Moreover, as Teilhac has shown, he projected into economics a social rationalism that opened the way for a reborn political economy based on scientific method. Though his is one of the enduring creations of the human mind which spur the species on to greater cultural achievements, it is, first and foremost, an economic classic. Insofar as George pointed to monopoly and privilege as socially disastrous institutions , his teaching has been adopted by economists everywhere. His doctrine that all men share a common right to the earth now rules space exploitation—that is, the universe —and the deep oceans and it is winning grudging recognition in the one-fourth of the earth humanity inhabits.     

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 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 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.     

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.     

Interest Originating from Invested Rent: Social or Prwate Property?

A bstract Herny George contends that rent , even whten derived from land purchased with the fruits of honest toil, cannot justly be privately appropriated, because land (not being a labor product) can have no clear moral title, and because its value is nto produced by the owner but by society Although he does nto explicity address the ethical propriety of interest earned by capital originating from invested rent, his writings yield the following implieit analysis Even as rent should be returned to the community, abstractjustice also demands that interest on capital that stems from rent should be returned to the community But there is no feasible way in which to implement this demand, since it is scarcely ever possible to separate interest derived indiretly from private rent from interest not so derived however, this poses no real problem if We seek justice for the present and the future instead of reparations for injustice in the past For the socialization of rent would render accumulations of private capital, regardless of how obtained, impssible to sustam (absent special privileges confeired by government) unless directed toward the satisfaction of public de mand as reflected in the marketplace     

Alfred Russel Wallace's Campaign to Nationalize Land

A bstract . Alfred Russel Wallace rose to fame with Charles Darwin: They independently found the principle of natural selection. Wallace later focused on reforming Great Britain's land tenure system, under which a few owners had come to control most of the land, while most citizens had little or none of their own. In Land Nationalization (1882) Wallace proposed for the state to acquire all land, with limited compensation. The state would then lease it by auction, but to actual users only. Wallace saw his kinship with Henry George, and opened doors to help George tour Britain as a speaker. For years their ideas were linked by friend and foe, and together had great impact on British politics.     

Henry George and Europe

A bstract . In the eyes of European scholars, publicists and politicians who studied Henry George's work, he, as a social philosopher , had adopted the position of the natural law philosophers of the 18th century. The latter inspired the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution and its Bill of Rights, as well as the poiitical philosophy of Jeffersonian democracy , the ethos of the 18th and 19th century pioneer settlers. George rejected Social Darwinism. He saw natural law as the only true and reliable basis for a just social order. Like Karl Marx he mastered Ricardian economics ; unlike Marx, George made two factors the basis of his system, labor and land. George saw that each person had a natural right —and a natural imperative for survival —to apply his or her productive capacity to the earth –as living space and as storehouse of nutrients and raw materials. The person-land relationship , he discovered, lay at the basis of human culture. And so the land's rent , now monopolized by the few, had to be appropriated to meet the needs of society, most efficiently and justly by a land value tax.     

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.