Abstract
In this paper we analyse Adam Smith's claim that the 'natural progress of opulence' described the way in which economies would, if left to themselves, develop. It is argued here that the reasons Smith gave for this being 'entirely inverted' in Europe do not, in fact, demonstrate that the European path was historically unnatural, even on Smith's own criterion. The cause of this internal inconsistency is located in Smith's methodological approach which took an a priori concept, that of productive labour, and attempted to apply it to historical situations.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
