C. E. Ayres's Reliance on T. H. Huxley: Did Darwin's Bulldog Bite?

In David Seckler's Thorstein Veblen and the Institutionalists, the proposition is advanced that “Ayres out-Veblens Veblen and out Deweys Dewey”. This commonly held view of the intellectual orientation of the prominent American institutional economist, Clarence Edwin Ayres, places him as an intellectual descendent of philosopher John Dewey's pragmatism, and economist Thorstein B, Veblen's institutionalist economics. Certainly such an outlook is not incorrect, but it is also not adequate if one is to achieve an understanding of Ayres. A careful check of the indexes of Ayres's major works shows that his references preponderantly go not to Dewey and to Veblen, but to Adam Smith and Charles Darwin, Moreover, it is to the latter that Ayres turned in his effort to overturn the former. However, Ayres in interpreting Darwin relied not upon Dewey and Veblen, but rather upon Thomas Henry Huxley, the British physician turned scientist, who because of his outspoken advocacy of Darwin's evolutionary biology became known as “Darwin's bulldog.”     

George Raymond Geiger (1903-1998): A Rich Life

ABSTRACT George R. Geiger, professor of Philosophy at Antioch College for fifty years, died March 19, 1998. He was a founding member of the editorial council of the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (1941-1998) and of the Antioch Review (1941-1998). He was also an advisor to and consulting editor of the Humanist (1955–59). He was the son of the founder of the Henry George School of Social Science of New York City and John Dewey's last doctoral student at Columbia University. Early on in his career he took up his father's cause, that of land value taxation; later he took up a defense of the contributions of his mentor, Dewey, and became in his own words a "journalist of philosophy."     

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.     

Justice As Subject and Object of Planning

Considerations of justice have moved to a central place in planning theory following Susan Fainstein's (2010) eloquent plea to elevate justice to the principal criterion for the evaluation of planning practice. Justice based on this understanding is the object of planning—the normative end that planning practice should strive to achieve. In this essay I explore the implications for planning theory and practice of making justice the subject rather than the object of planning. This formulation places justice at the center of rather than regarding it as the outcome of practice: what is of concern here is planning as the practice of justice rather than the justice of planning practice. The question for planning in this mode shifts from ‘Is this a just outcome?' to ‘What is justice in this situation?'. Based on John Dewey's pragmatist philosophy, this question transcends the dualisms between subject and object, and process and outcome, by understanding outcomes as already formulated (what Dewey called ends‐in‐view) in the process of their production. A planning process that takes justice as its subject is anti‐foundational and contextual rather than universal, anticipatory rather than retrospective, generative of solutions rather than evaluative of outcomes, culturally encompassing rather than project‐delimited, and inclusively democratic rather than expert‐driven. Examples from a variety of sources illustrate the practice of justice as the subject of planning.     

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.     

Public Choice and Land Tax Fairness

Land value taxation (LVT) as desirable U.S. tax policy was brilliantly set forth by the American publicist and economist, Henry George, in the book Progress and Poverty, published 100 years ago. Economists concerned with state and local taxation have generally accepted the basic elements of George's analysis. The absence of substantial LVT legislation despite the economic efficiency and ethical strengths of land as a tax base arises from two sources. First, the public perception of land has not separated land's attributes from those possessed by other property. Second, land ownership data have not been gathered and publicized. Groups favoring taxes that promote economic justice and efficiency should support efforts to develop land ownership data. It would be an important first step toward fully utilizing the potential of LVT.     

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.     

Louis F. Post and the Single Tax Movement, 1872–98

Abstract . The career of Louis F. Post (1849–1928), upon his return to New York following a stint as a Carpetbagger in South Carolina, became, for a time, that of publicist. Post first attempted to break into regular Republican politics, then turned to Journalism on the staff of the New York Truth, and finally was converted to the Single Tax philosophy of Henry George in the early 1880s. Thereafter, Post became George's closest confidante and labored hard as a writer, lecturer, and political organizer to elect George and others to make the Single Tax a reality (1). The author's sources include Post's unpublished autobiography, the files of The Public, The Standard and the Cleveland Recorder, as well as material from the Henry George Collection in the New York Public Library.     

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.     

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 and the Institution of Private Property in Land: A Property Rights Approach

Abstract . Conflicting statements concerning whether the implementation of Henry George's single tax proposal would destroy the institution of private property in land have appeared in the literatures of economics and other disciplines. A number of writers have implied that the taxation of Ricardian rent is equivalent to land nationalization. In the main, followers of George have denied that the single tax would abolish private property in land. Their claim is based on the fact that land titles would remain in private hands under the single tax. Since the whole question of private property is beset with ideological difficulties, a property rights approach is applied to this issue in an attempt to resolve the controversy. The conclusions are that the actual implementation of George's system would not destroy private property in land and that it is incorrect to equate the single tax with land nationalization.     

Natural Rights: Henry George and the Economic Fruits of a Good Society

This article examines Henry George's understanding of how natural rights grow out of a just society. His views were influenced by the 17^th‐century proponents of natural rights, but cannot be subsumed under them. The connection of freedom to obligation affirmed by George's classical Protestantism allowed him to overcome tension between theories of natural law and natural rights. Rights and responsibilities were not abstractions for George. His practical solution for restructuring society offers a modern path to a more just society in which rights would abound.     

George on Land Speculation and the Winner's Curse

A bstract .   Henry George anticipated the winner's curse phenomenon and suggested an antidote to prevent wasteful land speculation. In these ways his economic ideas still resonate today as part of modern finance theory.     

Herbert Davenport on the Single Tax: A Second Look

A bstract . Despite a recent claim to the contrary, Herbert J. Davenport was firmly against the Henry George proposal to try to raise all public funds from a tax on land. This is evidenced by two papers he wrote on the subject. Davenport argued that the single tax on land would prompt the inefficient use of substitutes for land, that it would tend to destroy the base upon which the tax was levied, and that it would offend our sense of justice, or the equal treatment principle. The most important and effective of his arguments appears to be the first. It was, more specifically, that in the event of a land tax, individuals would economize on land. They would farm more intensively, they would construct higher buildings, and they would exploit potential underground living space. This paper describes Davenport's arguments and shows why they have been misinterpreted in the past as supporting Henry George's tax theory.     

Saving the Commons in an Age of Plunder

Land ownership, as commonly understood today, originated with the enclosure movement during the English Tudor era almost four centuries ago. Karl Polanyi referred to this “propertization” of nature as the “great transformation.” That land, water, and air was a social commons is now archaic and forgotten, and with it the classical economic concept of rent, which was, in theory, once paid to royalty as the earth's guardian. Garrett Hardin's article, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” raised alarm about the abuse and loss of this realm, and he recommended constraints and privatization to prevent this. Most people view titles to landed property much as they do their household goods, but Henry George saw that the earth should be seen as a common resource and its value taxed to benefit everyone. This would restore economic equilibrium to market exchanges and pay for government services. The capture of natural resource rents can supplant taxes on wages and capital goods, and it comports with all textbook principles of sound tax theory. This policy can be the modern replacement for the commons, and implementing resource rent capture is both economically and technically feasible.     

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.     

Does the Henry George Theorem Provide a Practical Guide to Optimal City Size?

A bstract .   The spatial distribution of economic activity is determined by a balancing of increasing and decreasing returns to scale activities. The Henry George Theorem states roughly that, if economic activity is efficiently organized over a "large" space, aggregate land rents equal the aggregate losses from the decreasing returns to scale activities. Kanemoto, Ohkawara, and Suzuki have tentatively applied the Henry George Theorem to investigate whether Tokyo has too large a population. This paper has two aims. The first is to explore the Theorem and its generality; the second is to examine whether it provides a promising conceptual foundation for estimating whether particular cities are over- or underpopulated.     

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.     

Henry George and Immigration

Henry George's opposition to free immigration may be surprising in light of his positions on other aspects of economic theory and policy. This essay reviews George's statements on immigration policy, discusses inconsistencies of these statements with his positions on free trade and Malthusian population theory, compares George's views with the neoclassical economic perspective on immigration, and suggests that implementation of George's policy of taxing land values would share the gains from immigration in a manner that might reduce opposition to open borders.