The second common class or kind of opinions to which I’ve referred is distinguished, not by a particular emphasis upon some specific view of the character and functions of the aggressive actions of states, however by a really particular thesis with respect to the knowledge and the implications of such actions. If wars are waged for financial benefit, it’s held, they defeat their very own functions. So too, generally, with all nationwide insurance policies designed to advance the financial pursuits of 1 state on the expense of different states. The reality is, it’s alleged, {that a} nation positive aspects by the prosperity of different nations, not by their poverty.
This common thesis, if said with some crucial {qualifications}, can be subscribed to, I believe, by most economists. It was brilliantly expounded in Mr. Norman Angell’s guide, The Nice Phantasm. If, within the days of its first vogue, that guide appeared to be given little consideration by the economists, it was not, I think about, as a result of they disagreed with it conclusions, however slightly as a result of most of these conclusions appeared to them to be pretty commonplace financial doctrines. Probably Mr. Angell weakened case by pushing it a little bit too far. He gave too little weight to the particular pursuits (not essentially and even typically class pursuits) that could be served by a belligerent or imperialistic coverage, even when different pursuits, bigger however extra subtle, are injured. He didn’t adequately distinguish between speedy and supreme positive aspects and losses. However taking his argument within the giant, and leaving particulars apart, it could command, I imagine, the overall assent of economists. A few of the insurance policies he finds unwise are, in reality, insurance policies we’re accustomed to disparage by lumping them collectively and calling them neo-mercantilism.
That is from Allyn Younger, “Economics and Battle: A Presidential Deal with,” American Financial Assessment, Quantity 16, No. 1, March 1926. It’s Harvard professor Allyn Younger’s presidential handle to the American Economics Affiliation.
Regular Angell’s guide, The Nice Phantasm, which Younger refers, to makes the case that commerce between nations makes battle much less seemingly. I believe Younger’s critique is apt. The Nice Phantasm was printed in 1909. The battle between England and France on the one hand and Germany on the opposite was a battle during which either side had substantial commerce with one another.
However don’t overstate Angell’s naivete. As Wikipedia places it:
Angell mentioned that arms build-up, for instance the naval race between England and Germany that was taking place as he wrote the guide within the 1900s, was not going to safe peace. As an alternative, it could result in elevated insecurity and thus ratchet up the chance of battle. The one viable path to peace can be respect for worldwide legislation, applied in a world court docket, during which points can be handled rationally and peacefully.
Postscript: I don’t assume I’d have heard of Allyn Younger if not for a few of the studying I did, very early in my profession, of George Stigler’s work on the the historical past of financial thought. By the way, the good Frank Knight was certainly one of Younger’s college students.
