Assignment: Write a short essay (approximately 2,500 words or five pages)
answering one of the following questions:
1.
Economic
science is cumulative. Economists modify and formalize the work of earlier
economists. Adam Smith, as an early economic thinker, has naturally been taken
up and elaborated on by many authors. Choose one of the “Modern
Smithians” discussed in class (Paul Krugman, Vernon Smith, Kenneth Arrow, Paul
Romer, or Joseph Stiglitz/Andrew Weiss) and write about:
a.
The
methodological or stylistic similarities and/or differences between your chosen
author and Adam Smith, and
b.
The
substantive similarities and/or differences between your chosen author and Adam
Smith.
Be
sure to use quotes from Adam Smith and from your chosen author in a well-written and properly cited presentation
of your arguments.
2.
Adam
Smith begins the Wealth of Nations with a detailed analysis of the division of
labor. The division of labor is one of the most important common threads
running through his economic thought. Explain Smith’s perspective on
a.
The
relationship between the division of labor and trade (either domestic or
international trade),
b.
The
relationship between the division of labor and economic growth, and
c.
The
role that the division of labor plays in producing a unified Smithian theory of
trade and economic growth. That is to say, how does the division of labor
account for the interrelationship between trade and growth for Adam Smith.
Be
sure to use quotes from Adam Smith in
a well-written and properly cited presentation
of your arguments.
Posts
It seems to me that you want your students to focus on specific aspects of the edifice provided in The Wealth of Nations. Will there be any possibility for your students to write essays on Adam Smith's position on money and banking?
ReplyDeleteNo Coase/North/Williamson/Demsetz/Acemoglu discussed as modern-day Smithians?
ReplyDeleteI did discuss Coase at the last minute (inspired by his death) on division of labor and its relation to his theory of the firm. Obviously Williamson could have been there as well, but it was just a brief discusion. I'm not sure we're covering stuff in Smith that would have made North and Acemoglu relevant. Same with Demsetz. The connection there, I think, is less obvious. Smith is the theorist of the division of labor, hence modern versions in Krugman and Romer. He is one of the more famous early proponents of what Mandeville called the private vice/public virtue relationship - the social optimality of market exchange - hence modern versions in Vernon Smith and Ken Arrow.
DeleteThose are the themes we are hitting particularly hard (along with trade and growth, which again circles back to Krugman and Romer), so these were the authors that made sense. He isn't the seminal theorist of property rights or institutions, for example, so I don't think the case is as strong for these guys.
Stiglitz and Weiss are on there because we discussed economists' perspectives on interest rates on the first day (just as an illustration of how economic thinking has changed between Aquinas and today). Since they were exposed to that - and the close similarities between what Smith said and what Stiglitz said - I wanted to give them the chance to write about him too.
Buchanan was on the list, but I didn't have time in the schedule to talk a whole lot about Smith on government, so I cut him. Otherwise he would have been on there.