Search

Urban developments in expanding economies require increasing investments in infrastructure and services. If these are not provided by developers and landowners, the cost has to be met by the government and taxpayers. Financial benefits of economic development accrue to developers and landowners in the form of increased land values, but previous attempts to redirect a share of these benefits to the government have rarely been successful. A more logical and practical alternative would be the introduction of a system that returns dividends to the government in proportion to its investments in infrastructure and services.

This work provides a very useful and fascinating account of reactions in various countries to Malthus’s publications. It contains an introduction by the three editors, followed by nine chapters dea...

In his lecture tour in Australia in 1890 Henry George argued that all citizens have equal rights to the natural resources of their country. He was critical of the monopoly rights given in Australia...

Malthus’s views on the relative roles and importance of the social classes—higher, lower and middle—are presented. The view commonly expressed in the secondary literature that he was prejudiced in favour of the upper classes is questioned. The view that he was uncaring or unsympathetic toward the labouring classes is said to lack textual support. It is argued that the economic importance he attributed to the middle classes and to a greater equality in the distribution of property, income and wealth is an essential, although frequently neglected, feature of his political economy.

The aim of this work is to show to what extent Malthus’ thoughts on population were influenced by conditions in the ‘New Worlds’ beyond Europe. Anyone who has even glanced at the Essay on Populatio...

The view that Malthus did not have a coherent and convincing theory of either growth or glut is criticised, and the contrary view is supported, and strengthened by extensive textual material showin...

Professor Sergio Cremaschi has argued that Malthus's views on theology and ethics did not remain static, but evolved over his lifetime. This article acknowledges that there were changes, but argues that they were not of major significance, and that Malthus's spiritual attitudes did not significantly alter. Malthus's status as a political economist is also discussed, together with comments on his character.

Allegations of inconsistency and self-contradiction have regularly been levied against Malthus, but some of the allegations might be the result of inadequate appreciation of his use of a distinctive methodology involving a complex structure of causal relations. After an introductory summary of his general statements on causality, this paper analyses 26 selected topics that show how he deployed this methodology.

The day-to-day records of the bank accounts of the political economist, Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834), have been preserved at Hoare & Co., London. This paper gives a summary of the main features of his accounts, particularly those that shed some light on his professional and academic life.

The article argues that, in seeking to establish criteria for distributive justice, consideration should be given to the manner in which Earth's natural resources are owned. The views of seven notable authorities on this issue are presented, ranging from an unrestricted right of private ownership to some form of public or collective ownership. The possibility of a system of ownership that is private but equal is discussed.

J.M. ‘Pete’ Garland was an outstanding Australian economist sometimes much overlooked. Despite a promising academic career, as evidenced by his work on land tax, he was lost to Australian universities when the Commonwealth Bank snapped him up on his return to Australia from Cambridge. He became a key figure in the development of Australian central banking practices, establishing a longstanding liquidity convention that the private trading banks upheld for many years. He was also instrumental in building up the economic research department at the Bank. He maintained his links with academe and was considered the man most likely to write the biography of L.F. Giblin.

Henry George distinguished between value created by production and value created by what he called 'obligation'. He argued that value from production adds to both individual wealth and common wealth; whereas value from obligation adds to individual wealth - that is, the wealth of an individual who has the power to impose the obligation on others - but not to common wealth. It merely redistributes wealth from one individual to another. He claimed that there are numerous examples of values being created by obligations, the principal example being the ownership of land. Although George's concept of value from obligation leaves a number of questions unanswered, this paper argues that the concept remains a useful analytical tool that does not deserve to be neglected in the history of economic thought.

The ideas of Henry George on land ownership and land taxation were vigorously debated amongst members of the Australian Economic Association, founded in Sydney in 1887. The visit of George to Australia in 1890 for a three-month lecture tour gave further stimulus to the debate. Some of the members strongly supported George, but most were opposed, for various reasons: economic and ethical. However, there was a surprising degree of support for the principle of land nationalisation. This paper summarises the main arguments, for and against, and asks whether they are relevant to the problems of land speculation, land taxation and the affordability of urban land today.

This article compares Ricardo’s statements on the Law of Comparative Advantage (LCA) with modern versions. It interprets Ricardo’s LCA as a practical guide or as a piece of useful commercial advice for commodity traders, and argues that, contrary to modern versions, Ricardo’s LCA does not constitute a logical basis for international specialisation of production. It contends that Ricardo’s case for international specialisation is based on absolute advantage, not comparative advantage. It concludes that, if ‘LCA’is taken to mean the LCA as found in modern textbooks, then Ricardo did not have a Law of Comparative Advantage.

Information about Henry George's lecture tour of Australia in 1890 can be found in his 1890 diary (1) and in the five letters he sent from Australia (2) for publication in his newspaper, The Standard, in New York. The aim of this paper is to supplement the above sources with further details from the reports of George's lectures in contemporary Australian newspapers. (3) The paper is in three sections. Section I is a brief day resume of the itinerary. Section II contains some general observations on the events of the tour. Section III is a commentary on selected themes of the reported speeches and on some of the principal questions and criticisms from the audiences to see whether they throw any new light on George's policies. I The Itinerary: A Brief Resume (4) HENRY GEORGE AND HIS WIFE ANNIE ARRIVED by ship in Sydney on March 6, 1890, having departed from San Francisco on February 8. They were met at Circular Quay by a cheering crowd who marched in procession with a brass band and accompanied the Georges, in a four-horse coach, to the Town Hall, where the Lord Mayor made an official speech of welcome and George responded. That evening was a banquet in Henry George's honor at the Town Hall. Formal welcomes and banquets were to become frequent features of his tour. His first lecture in Australia was delivered at the Protestant Hall in Sydney on Saturday evening, March 8, on the topic "The Land for the People." He spoke for two hours without notes and at the end "received a recognition that was magnificent in its spontaneity and heartiness" (Echo, March 8). It was the first of six public lectures he was to deliver at various times in Sydney. The following day, Sunday, March 9, he preached in the Pitt Street Congregational Church on the text "Thy Kingdom Come," the first of nine Sunday sermons he gave in Australia in nonconformist Protestant churches. (5) Three more public lectures followed in Sydney on successive days. On Thursday, March 13, the Georges set out by train on a six-day lecture tour of five country towns to the west and north of Sydney--Lithgow, Orange, Bathurst, Newcastle, and Maitland--and returned to Sydney on March 19, which was spent writing a report of his visit so far for The Standard. The following day, March 20, they travelled by train to Melbourne, lecturing at four (6) inland towns en route--Goulburn, Cootamundra, Wagga Wagga, and Albury--arriving in Melbourne on March 25. He gave three lectures in Melbourne followed by lectures in four towns to the north and west of Melbourne--Bendigo, (7) Echuca, Ballarat, and Geelong--returning to Melbourne on Easter Monday, April 7, to engage in a well-publicized public debate with William Trenwith, a prominent Labor spokesman and a leading advocate of protectionism. After returning to Sydney, George set out on another tour of inland towns (8) in New South Wales, lecturing at Blayney, Carcoar, Cowra, Grenfell, and Forbes. He left Forbes at 6 a.m. on April 15 to return to Sydney, travelling all day by coach and all night by train. The following day, Wednesday, April 16, was spent composing the second report for The Standard. On Thursday evening, April 17, he and his wife set out for South Australia via Melbourne, arriving in Adelaide on the morning of Saturday, April 19. They were met at the train station by a deputation of supporters, as usual, and on this occasion by the American consul. Despite the long journey, George took the opportunity of an election day in South Australia to tour the polling places and see an Australian election in progress. He was very impressed with the Australian system of secret ballots and particularly noted the relative absence of accusations of corruption. The people of Australia, he said, "seem to thoroughly believe in the purity of their government and public men" (Standard, June 11). That afternoon they were given a formal welcome and a "beautifully illuminated address" to which George made a lengthy speech in reply. …

The article reviews the book "Economic, Social & Demographic Thought in the 19th Century: The Population Debate from Malthus to Marx," by Yves Charbit.

JOHN PULLEN [*] ABSTRACT. 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. I George's Reform Policy: Initial and Modified Versions IT IS WELL KNOWN that Henry George believed that radical land reform was the essential solution to the problem of persistent poverty in the midst of progress. The reform that he proposed--viz., the taxation of land rent--is quite clear and unambiguous; but whether this reform amounts to, or was intended to amount to, the abolition of the private ownership of land as a legal institution, was left far from clear. The aim of this paper is to explore the distinctions made by George between ownership [1] of land and possession of land, and between common ownership of land and private ownership of land. One of the conclusions of the paper is that the lack of clarity in these concepts in George's writings has impeded the acceptance of his reform. His initial statements of the reform appear to be an unequivocal plea for land nationalisation and for the abolition of private ownership of land. He stated emphatically we must ... substitute for the individual ownership of land a common ownership ... We must make land common property. (1956, p. 328) and argued that since private ownership of land is the cause of the problem, nothing short of the abolition of private ownership of land can rectify matters. To remove an evil one must remove its cause. He regarded all other proposed remedies as mere palliatives, more or less inefficacious. But despite having presented the case for land nationalisation in such ringing terms, he then proceeded to offer a modified and less radical measure, viz., the public ownership not of the land itself but of the land value, to be achieved by imposing a tax on every portion of land equal to its annual value. He believed that this measure would amount to the abolition of private ownership of land, and he said that those who occupy and use the land after the implementation of this reform would be merely its "possessors" not its "proprietors." This distinction between possession and ownership was not formally defined, but can be inferred from statements such as: I do not propose to either purchase or to confiscate private property in land. The first would be unjust; the second, needless. Let the individuals who now hold it retain, if they want to, possession of what they are pleased to call their land. Let them continue to call it their land. Let them buy and sell, and bequeath and devise it. We may safely leave them the shell, if we take the kernel. It is not necessary to confiscate land; it is only necessary to confiscate rent. and In form, the ownership of land would remain just as now. No owner of land need be dispossessed. (1956, pp. 405, 406) Such statements indicate that for George the distinction between ownership of land and possession of land rests on the ownership of the land rent. The rights to "buy and sell, and bequeath and devise' are merely the "shell" or the "form" of ownership, but the right to the ownership of the land rent is the "kernel." When the state takes over ownership of the land rent through taxation, George believed it effectively removes the essence of private ownership of land, and transforms private ownership into private possession, even though the possessors may still regard themselves (and may be permitted to regard themselves) as landowners. …

The article reviews the book "The Science of Wealth: Adam Smith and the Framing of Political Economy," by Tony Aspromourgos.

(1998). Hearn’s ‘Plutology’ or Hearn’s ‘Olbology’? History of Economics Review: Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 16-20.

Between 1873 and 1875 two anonymous pamphlets were published in London with intriguingly similar titles. They were: (A) A Few Remarks upon Certain Practical Questions of Political Economy, 1873; 2d ed., 1873; 3d ed., 1874; and (B) A Few Remarks on Professor Cairnes' Recent Contribution to Political Economy, 1875. Both were published by Simpkin, Marshall, and Co., Stationers' Hall Court, and both carried on their title pages the statement “By a Former Member of the Political Economy Club.” The identity of the author or authors has not hitherto been established, but it now appears that John Cazenove (1788-1879) was certainly the author of (A), and most probably the author of (B).

(1995). Henry George in Northern New South Wales Newspaper Accounts of Two Lectures. History of Economics Review: Vol. 23, No. 1, pp. 83-95.

Malthus did not leave us with a systematic treatment of colonization, but from remarks scattered throughout his publications and correspondence it is possible to assemble a fairly coherent account of his views on the advantages and disadvantages of colonies, and on the reasons why some have failed and others succeeded. Included in these scattered remarks are some comparisons between his own views on colonies and those of Adam Smith. The question of the relationship between Malthus and Adam Smith is a rather complex and subtle one, and cannot be given the full consideration it deserves in one short paper. But, as a general summary, it can be said that Malthus had a high regard for Smith and considered himself a follower and disciple of Smith, by contrast with Ricardo, James Mill, and McCulloch etc., whom he considered as exponents of a ‘New System of Political Economy”. His own Principles of Political Economy was conceived as a collection of ‘tracts or essays”, not as a new systematic treatise replacing the Wealth of Nations, Joseph Gamier in his article ‘Malthus” in the Dictionnaire de l'Economie Politique, 1852, saw that the title of the Principles was in fact a misnomer: ‘Malgré son titre, le livre sur les Principes n'est point un traité complet, mais seulement une collection de dissertations.” In what was probably intended as a criticism of Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 1817, Malthus stated that the ‘present period … seems to be unpropitious to the publication of a new systematic treatise on political economy”, and, referring to Smith's work, stated that ‘the treatise which we already possess is still of the very highest value”. Nevertheless, despite professing his affiliation, Malthus did not hesitate to criticize Smith when he disagreed with him. He recognized that the Wealth of Nations contained ‘controverted points” and that it would require some ‘additions … which the more advanced stage of the science has rendered necessary”.

If a reason is sought for not neglecting Cazenove, we need look no further than to his views on demand, consumption, saving and gluts, and to his criticisms of what he called ‘Say's principle’ and ‘Say's new theory’.