Adam Smith, with “An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations” published in 1776 is unanimously hailed as the founder of economics as a social science and also of “economic liberalism” or “capitalism” as it is called to contrast it with “socialism”, the latter propagated by K. Marx at a later date.

The group of economists that followed A.Smith, including such notable names as D.Ricardo, N.W.Senior, John Stuart Mill, culminating in Alfred Marshall (1890: Principles of Economics) is called the “Classical School” or alternately the “Manchester School” to refer to their place of origin. Their macroeconomic system is called the “Classical System”. Having accepted the Malthusian law of population (T.Robert Malthus: 1798 Essays on the Principle of Population) D. Ricardo had come up with a model in which growth eventually comes to a halt, moving to that point, however, all along at full employment equilibrium.This was also in line with the views of Adam Smith. Marshall had introduced the concept of elasticities and used the partial method of analysis. In contrast, Leon Walras, in his “Eléments d’Economie Pure ou Theorie de La Richesse Sociale” used the general equilibrium approach to prove that the economy arrives automatically to full employment equilibrium, following Adam Smith and the Classical School.

This book offers a summary of the basic views and conclusions of Adam Smith concerning economic regime, as is also followed by the rest of the members of the Classical School: In a milieu of perfect competition prevailing in all the markets or sectors of the economy, including the labor market, full employment equilibrium will be achieved automatically. This equilibrium will, therefore, also maximize the welfare of the workers because the market wage rate, with no intrusions from the government or the unions, will have ensured full employment. Hence, there is no need for interventionism, that is, for the state to intervene prices, wages, channeling of investments and economic decisions in general.

Underlying all these questions of right is the question how they are to be secured and maintained. By enforcing the responsibility of the executive and legislature to the community as a whole? Such is the general answer, and it indicates one of the lines of connection between the general theory of liberty and the doctrine of universal suffrage and the sovereignty of the people. The answer, however, does not meet all the possibilities of the case. The people as a whole might be careless of their rights and incapable of managing them. They might be set on the conquest of others, the expropriation of the rich, or on any form of collective tyranny or folly. It is perfectly possible that from the point of view of general liberty and social progress a limited franchise might give better results than one that is more extended. Even in this country it is a tenable view that the extension of the suffrage in 1884 tended for some years to arrest the development of liberty in various directions. On what theory does the principle of popular sovereignty rest, and within what limits does it hold good? Is it a part of the general principles of liberty and equality, or are other ideas involved? These are among the questions which we shall have to examine.

1. T. HOBHOUSE – 1911