Content provided in partnership with
Business Services Industry
19 Patten: a study in intellectual dishonesty - Part III: nineteenth-century Americas critics
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, The, Nov, 2003 by Charles F. Collier
Simon Nelson Patten's (1) critique of Henry George almost perfectly epitomizes the main developments in American economics at the turn of the century. The period was the one in which American economics, particularly as presented in academic institutions, became an increasingly specialized discipline. Up until about 1870 or 1880, American economics was written and taught by men who were almost always either self-taught or trained in other fields, such as law, political science, and philosophy. After about 1880, professors tended to have advanced degrees in economics and tended to concentrate their teaching efforts in economics, although the specialization was often incomplete. In this regard, George seems to be a particularly good example of the self-educated "layman" economists whose era was fading away. But, as Warren J. Samuels has correctly noted, "[George] clearly had mastered economics as it stood in the 1870s, that is, principally, classical economics." (2) Patten, in contrast, is illustrative of the newer generation of those with formal, advanced training in the subject. Patten did his advanced study in Europe for the simple reason that American universities did not have recognized graduate programs in economics at that time. Moreover, this was the period in which American economics "came of age," in the sense that there were sufficiently large numbers of economists to justify, or even make necessary, the formation of professional associations. Patten, along with John Bates Clark (see the separate essay on him in this volume), was instrumental in founding the American Economic Association and each of them served as its president. Finally, this was a period during which economists in many parts of the world made devastating critiques of classical political economy.
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Further, George and Patten are of interest since each criticized classicism from a different viewpoint. George's writing is best viewed as an attempt to correct the flaws of classical political economy and to resuscitate it. Patten's critique was, in no small part, a criticism not only of classical political economy itself but also of George's critique/resuscitation of it. Patten rejected the orthodox classical view that events--such as the population growth that led to rent increases, as predicted by Ricardo--were beyond man's control. (3) Further, Patten advocated far too much governmental intervention in the economy to be an orthodox political economist. Moreover, classical political economy did lead to pessimistic conclusions about the fate of humanity. Classicism was, after all, called "the dismal science." Patten was far too optimistic to accept the classical premises and/or conclusions. Then, too, this was a period in which the very name of the subject changed from (classical) political economy to (neoclassical) economics. (4) Patten was generally a neoclassical economist. George, in contrast, always viewed himself as a classical political economist, in the vein of Adam Smith. He always viewed economics as a bastardization of the true science, political economy, and he always used the word "economics" in a pejorative sense. (5)
In sum, each of the writers wrote on most of the major topics of concern at turn of the century. It is not too much to say that George's and Patten's writings helped make some of these issues major topics of concern. It is also not too much to say that many of Patten's writings were direct reactions to the ideas of George.
Static vs. Dynamic Analysis
One major area on which the two wrote and differed was the kind of analysis that could be, or had to be, performed. Specifically, they had different ideas about the time period of analysis--about the changes that could occur in the time period considered.
Patten's economics was primarily dynamic with progress as the primary characteristic. For example, he never assumed that the state of the art of production or the level of technological sophistication was constant. He also believed that all living organisms, human institutions, and societies tend to evolve continuously. Patten argued that once any environment becomes occupied by organisms having an appetite for food, a straggle tends to begin as each individual tries to appropriate, sometimes using physical force, a part of the region. Eventually, however, people realize that the food furnished by nature is only a small part of the total amount that can be produced. Patten believed that attention would then turn away from aggressiveness to cooperation in an attempt to increase the total food supply. That, however, led to the introduction of new moral codes, which imposed sanctions upon those who undertook the very actions that were once the primary actions needed to survive. Patten believed that, under the moral codes, the ultimate aim was to increase the group's ability to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. Those who were too weak or too lazy to work would not survive in the new competitive struggle to aid the group of producers. Further, Patten argued that those who continue their aggressive actions designed to monopolize the food supply will ultimately be destroyed by their own selfishness. (6)
