F. W. Taussig on Individualism and the Birth Rate

Abstract

Frank William Taussig (1859-1940) was one of foremost economists of his time. Born in St. Louis, Missouri, he studied economics and law at Harvard, where he remained for most of his career-as professor of economics for over 40 years, a renowned teacher, and longtime editor of Quarterly Journal of Economics. His writings show both a strong theoretical bent-though, like Marshall's, sparingly mathematized-and a deep awareness of history and public affairs. His main scholarly contributions were to trade theory and tariffpolicy, embodied in his classic work The Tariff History of United States (1888 and subsequent editions). However, he became best known as author of a widely used textbook, Principles of Economics (New York: Macmillan, 1911, 2 volumes; its last edition, fourth, appearing in 1939). Joseph Schumpeter, in admiring essay on Taussig in his Ten Great Economists, described Principles as embodying the mature wisdom of a supremely able teacher. He saw it as emerging from tradition, exemplified by Adam Smith but waning in twentieth century, attributes to economist right and duty to shape and to judge public policies, to lead public opinion, to define desirable ends. In main excerpt below (from Chapter 53 of 1911 edition, second of two chapters on population), chief public policies at issue are those that promote or impede social mobility. Taussig echoes Malthus, or Malthus as interpreted by Mill, in finding motivation for changes in childbearing behavior in the wish of each family to promote its own material welfare. The fundamental cause of declining birth rate and improving standard of living observed in latenineteenth-century America and Europe lies in awakened ambition of individual. Low fertility incentives were created by secure property rights of peasant proprietorship in Old World; similar effects come from free institutions dissolving the castelike character of social classes in New World. Taussig records dysgenic worries that were widely held at time he wrote-that differential fertility might bring about a declining quality of population-but, again like Mill, sees a stationary population as not to be feared.