Edmund Burke's Political Economy: A Historiographical Essay
综述了20世纪80年代以来关于伯克政治经济学的学术研究，梳理了学者们关注的主要主题，如自由市场、济贫、纸币、公共财政等，并指出需要更广泛的背景化和比较研究来推进该领域。
Burke's political economy has drawn the attention of commentators since the nineteenth century, including prominent economists such as J. M. Keynes and F. A. Hayek. Through the significant development of Burke scholarship over the last few decades, several aspects of his economic thought have become better understood. Now that a substantial study of the subject has recently been published (Collins 2020), it is a suitable moment to review its historiography.This article surveys the development of the scholarship on Burke's political economy mainly from the 1980s to the present and succinctly reviews the chief themes that commentators have focused on, such as his ideas on the free market, poor relief, paper money, public finance, manners, and property. This review suggests that broader contextualization and comparative research are required to advance the research further.Burke's political economy has long been considered an example of free-trade thinking, allegedly close to Adam Smith's idea of commerce. This line of interpretation has continually developed from the nineteenth century, although exceptions have been pointed out (Edgeworth 1894). Recently, commentators became more skeptical of the identification of Burke simply as a laissez-faire political economist. Although his preference for freer trade was often foregrounded, some of his statements were incompatible with free-trade ideology (e.g., Lock 1998–2006, 1:133, 360–63; Collins 2020: chaps. 3, 8). Even amid his arguments for the free market, particular characteristics of Burke's thought have recently received greater focus, including his attention to the hierarchical social structure of the economic cycle and his specific vocabulary related to commerce (e.g., Winch 1985; 1996: 215–16; Lock 1998–2006, 2:516–18; Rothschild 2001: chap. 2; Sato 2022).The Irish origin of Burke's free-trade perspective has still been largely neglected. Burke's intervention in Irish trade issues belongs with part of Irish versions of the “rich country–poor country” debate that was so prevalent in the eighteenth century (as identified by Hont [2008: 295–96] and Bourke [2015: 399–400]). Burke called attention to the competitive advantage of the English over the Irish economy, which he thought would continue even after commercial restrictions were lifted (Langford et al. 1981–2015, 9:522). This is an important point, as Burke's argument for free trade was long considered to be simply “liberal” in the sense that all nations involved would benefit from it; however, it is now clear that his free-trade orientation was not concerned with reciprocal benefits alone but also competitive advantage.In addition, it has only recently become known that in the 1750s, Burke wrote a memorandum reflecting on William Molyneux's Case of Ireland (1698), an influential work among eighteenth-century Irish patriots (Bourke 2012: 624–26, 642–44). The overlapping claims of Burke and Irish commentators in the early eighteenth century remain underappreciated. In the 1720s and 1730s, Irish writers including Arthur Dobbs and Thomas Prior called for opening Irish trade with England by arguing that not only Ireland but also England would benefit from doing so (e.g., Dobbs 1729: 66; Prior 1729: 69; Kelly 2000).Importantly, these Irish authors at times sought to refute the arguments of English political economists of the previous generation, such as Charles Davenant, who wrote that Ireland's cheap exports would be a great menace to English production and hence should be checked by commercial restraints (Dobbs 1729: 67; Prior 1729: 62–69). (On Davenant, see Hont 2005: 222–33; 2008: 250–53.) Although Burke's precise response to these writers is not known (cf. Langford et al. 1981–2015, 9:380), he was at least a reader of some of them (on Prior, for instance, see Fuchs 1996: 37, 66). However, Burke barely reflected on the monetary problems of the country, a theme often discussed by George Berkeley and other Irish writers.Burke's idea of poverty has received commentary from many scholars, particularly from the 1980s onward, identifying him as a strong critic of welfare measures, including the Poor Laws and the settlement acts. As Burke did not advance any detailed plan for poor relief, his idea of poverty was clearly distinct from those of other intellectuals of the age (Himmelfarb 1984: 66–73; Horne 1990; Rothschild 2001: chap. 2; Lock 1998–2006, 2:519). It would, however, be incorrect to take his critique of poor relief as simply the expression of an indifference toward the poor.Generally, a small subset of his works, such as Reflections on the Revolution in France, Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, and Third Letter on a Regicide Peace, are the focus of discussion, and his comments in his other works tend to be neglected. Among these, his long-standing concern with poverty in Ireland is obvious; Burke regarded it to be the unfortunate effect of the discouraging of industry resulting from religious persecution and commercial restraint.His critical comments on the slave trade and slavery should not be neglected in this connection. For instance, in Sketches of Negro Codes, Burke elaborated his plans to improve the living conditions of slaves, including their labor environment and religious education. Burke asserted that even black slaves could be entitled to property if certain conditions were met (as pointed out by Canavan [1995: 31]). If both the British poor and African slaves constituted vulnerable social groups, scholars must establish whether his attitude toward slaves was compatible with that to the poor. Canavan (1995: 140–42, quoting Reed 1983: 35) and Collins (2020: 26) also touched on some episodes, implying that Burke's attitude toward the poor was sympathetic, drawing attention to his active practice of private charity in particular.Burke's private notions and actions should, however, be distinguished from his ideas on public policy. He clearly believed that improving industry was the chief means of bettering the living conditions of the poor, and yet it is incorrect to assume that he relied solely on the economic growth made possible by the free market and the effective functioning of hierarchical society to mitigate poverty.In his view, for instance, the British taxation system, which he considered far less oppressive than that of France's ancien régime, was advantageous both to the poor and to the entire nation (Langford et al. 1981–2015, 2:146–51, 9:348–49). His evaluation of the system was, nevertheless, certainly more conservative than those of other figures. Like Smith, Burke believed that an excise should be laid on luxuries, but not heavily on necessaries such as provisions. However, both Smith's egalitarian reform plans for land tax and excise and Thomas Paine's call for progressive taxation were absent in Burke. While Burke's support of the education of French émigrés may, as Collins (2020: 101–2) noted, have reflected his philanthropic spirit, Smith's and Paine's proposals for education were more general and reformist ones (Langford et al. 1981–2015, 2:152–53, 9:348–49; Smith 1976a: 785–88, 828–36, 888–906; Paine 1792: chap. 5).Another underresearched area in the contextual study of Burke regards his relationship with the natural law tradition in reference to poor relief. A broad hint in this direction lies in a passage in Thoughts and Details on Scarcity, in which Burke commented that “Pufendorf, and other casuists do not, I think, denominate it [charity to the poor] quite properly, when they call it a duty of imperfect obligation” (Langford et al. 1981–2015, 9:129). It has recently been suggested that “Burke accepted this distinction [between perfect and imperfect obligations], citing Pufendorf,” and yet he meant that the “obligation, in other words, was to be taken seriously” (Bourke 2015: 890).The more obvious disparity between Burke and the natural law tradition can be identified in an episode from Burke's time at Trinity College, Dublin (to which Collins [2020: 411–12] draws attention). In a meeting for discussion, on July 3, 1747, it is recorded that one of Burke's fellow students, named Dennis, asserted that “the law which you have pass'd that makes sheep stealing Death must necessarily be repeal'd if we wou'd answer that end.” According to Dennis, sheep stealing is relatively a minor crime, and thus it must not be punished severely. Burke then responded, “No, a man's property's his life.” He continued, “The Law of Nature gives a man power to kill offenders. Now he that seizes my property would seize my life. . . . If we repeal this so necessary a Law future Parliaments may follow our Example and overthrow the most fundamental Laws in the Constitutions” (Samuels [1923] 2014: 289). This perspective may well be called “Burkean” in its respect of the antiquity of institutions and their role in political stability. As Collins (2020: 411–12) suggests, this is among the earliest examples of Burke's high regard for property rights.The context in which this contention emerged and the implications of Burke's argument have yet to be fully explored. In his own words, Dennis was discussing the case of those “who are constrain'd to steal thro’ poverty” (Samuels [1923] 2014: 289). Despite his appeal to the authority of natural law, Burke here actually deviated from the line of argument in the early modern natural law tradition.As often recalled by commentators,1 both Thomas Aquinas and Hugo Grotius argued for the right of necessity, in which theft would not be criminal in times of famine because “in such Cases one might enter again upon the Rights of the primitive Community” (Grotius 2005, 2:434–35). However, Grotius added the proviso that this right of necessity “may not be too far extended.” That is to say, “all other possible Means should be first used, by which such a Necessity may be avoided” (2:435).Pufendorf was dismissive of Grotius's claim that necessity would return private property to communal property, as this could not distinguish an idle person from a man plunging into poverty “without his Fault” (Pufendorf 1710: 165). Relief for those who are in extreme poverty is an imperfect duty, and yet “there seems to be no Reason why by the additional Force of a Civil Ordinance, it may not be turn'd into a strict and perfect Obligation” (164). (On Pufendorf's critique of Grotius, see Salter 2005.)The eighteenth-century Scottish writer Francis Hutcheson claimed that the dichotomy between “perfect” and “imperfect” rights or obligations could become blurred in intimate human relationships. For instance, a “friend, a benefactor, a brother, or a parent, would have still a stronger claim, even in . . . matters of imperfect obligation” (Hutcheson 1747: 99). Adam Smith also claimed that gratitude or civil ordinances could change imperfect obligations to perfect ones. In his words, a civil magistrate “may prescribe rules, therefore, which not only prohibit mutual injuries among fellow-citizens, but command mutual good offices to a certain degree” (Smith 1976b: 81; Witztum and Young 2006: 463). (On Hutcheson and Smith, see Fleischacker 2004a: chap. 10; 2004b: chap. 1.)Burke never discussed beneficence explicitly, and hence little can be precisely concluded on his thinking. First, he might not have opposed Hutcheson's idea of the convertibility between “imperfect” and “perfect” obligations, because he, for instance, accepted the natural law doctrine of perfect duties in the parent-child relationship (e.g., Langford 1981–2015, 8:109–10). Burke, however, must have strongly opposed the notion that the government could make poor relief into a “perfect” obligation. If it were obligatory, poor relief would entail an infringement of property rights, whose protection is also a perfect obligation, and a subversion of social foundations. Here, Burke again diverged from natural law tradition or intellectual currents flowing from it.Studies of Burke since around 1980 have succeeded in showing that his political and economic thought were closely related, where commentators had previously struggled to understand how his so-called conservatism and laissez-faire economics were related (the so-called Burke Problem in Macpherson 1980: chap. 1). Pocock 1982 is among the most influential studies in recent scholarship, where two important developments appeared. First, Burke's historical thought, especially his idea of chivalry, was close to the thinking of the Scottish Enlightenment. Moreover, Pocock persuasively identified Burke's critique of assignats, or paper money first issued in 1789 and backed by confiscated church lands, as ground in his denunciation of the French Revolution.Following on the scholarly awareness of the Scottish Enlightenment that had grown during the 1960s and 1970s, Pocock's article helped establish Burke's thought as rooted in the Enlightenment. Burke was no longer thought to be the anti-Enlightenment figure he had once been considered but part of one of its offshoots. According to Pocock (1982: 332–37), however, Burke's “commercial humanism” differed from that of the Scottish Enlightenment in that he stressed the role of “ancient” manners, including chivalry, in developing modern commercial prosperity.Viewed together with Canavan's (1995) emphasis on the idea of property in Burke, it is now clear that manners, property, and industry played a central role in Burke's idea of political economy, and the first two were the chief elements that enabled the third. Following the implications of Pocock's observations, recent studies have investigated the significance of morality (Collins 2020) and of institutions (whether formal or informal) as the “foundations of industry” in Burke's political economy (Sato 2022).It would be misleading, however, to suppose that Burke's political economy was completely underpinned by coherent of morality and As pointed for Burke's attitude toward the slave trade over time in political In of his of Burke at times to the economic benefit of the trade over the of chaps. in the Enlightenment should also be as the of the Enlightenment has been subject to debate for the last few In his comparative study of eighteenth-century and for instance, pointed to the to the Enlightenment of its and identified the Enlightenment as a at As part of the central part of this political economy was particularly in relatively poor nations and where was considered to be scholars have not yet to this scholarly but it is how to Burke in this of the Enlightenment. It is significant that his political economy in his early of his country, a poor nation that had with his and which were also in the eighteenth Like his Irish Burke sought to better Irish society both and the of political economy for were not or in any sense by these For him as well as for many of his was a of from which social can be his such as Burke yet he to that could to the of an entire As he it in for is in and has as long as it and slave of and of If is to be to the of however, both and would be (Langford et al. 1981–2015, political economy was not only to of social after to him political economy was a of political which both the nation and the would In public was a less to the Burke. While its significance in his thought and has been by commentators (e.g., less was Burke's of Despite his on the between Burke and the Scottish Pocock to the of Burke's idea of many of his Burke from that the of would never an of For instance, in the was as an figure who the that “there was no but from and Burke This the be from the of more and of a better from our than the and have from as they are with and and role of government was, to and industry in its should not as is of doing Burke believed that an in money would tend to the of after its of the was a chief as Burke and other political economists money was for developing a nation (e.g., Burke with other political economists that an in money could industry and As persuasively this related to of the of industry in the of in his claimed that and by general and with and to good still greater also pointed to such a effect of money in the of to that the of into by an of all the of and in a high (Langford et al. 1981–2015, Burke that industry was by money, was industry among the of was to the political economy of France's ancien in his As work was a of that a of in . . . be in property, and a (Langford et al. 1981–2015, Collins 2020: although this industry after identified by scholars Collins 2020: Burke high for for a trade (Langford et al. 1981–2015, and Bourke However, it must be that both were for his of money and which he with and As Burke that nation is to that which is not In other words, “the of a nation a better of trade than the of a poor (Langford et al. 1981–2015, Burke also argued that the of with the growth of and is when the is . . . the of is the is to his at the (Langford et al. 1981–2015, an in the money by exports to production and more with are also to competitive (Langford et al. 1981–2015, see also of an of money, to was to although it was from Burke's idea in to an in general see also paper money, assignats, Burke of the of as well as the of the assignats, whose was confiscated lands, as Burke were backed by As he French that our in England is to that and not the to the of our to the of our and to the of all idea of power from any part of the In not one of of any is received but of “the has had its origin in actually and paper of the has a to (Langford et al. 1981–2015, is as argued that paper to and and it is to the ideas of intellectual (On see largely to their historical of Burke, and Smith a of paper money, even Burke's and Smith's on paper money were more than of them believed that paper could be of in economic but that it must be by as it would the economy Smith 1976a: on can also money 2005: but Burke did not this In his view, such a could industry in the economy, because could of not of and to our which in the of as as in and (Langford et al. 1981–2015, idea of public must also be precisely in intellectual many including Smith, and he was not critical of In his view, did not the economy, as development the and public from made return to the (Langford et al. 1981–2015, 9:348–49; However, more and taxation could social and to a political In the he . . . are in their to become the means of their If for these by they by to the If they do not for they be by the of the most of all I an and not (Langford et al. 1981–2015, noted, here Burke not his notion of although it is clear that he did not that met that the regarded it as a critical point, but he and Burke were in drawing attention to the of that is to say, the of and the of the greater taxation by would and the of this power would political such as France's could this by the However, English could not in this as intimate relationship with would the from plunging into possible Hont 2005: It is this relationship between the two that Burke out as that distinguished English society from France, where the between the two became an important of the 1789 (Langford et al. 1981–2015, Hont support for his support of of Burke also to of in his in support of the chap. Although it was not as the idea of of was also in his to English trade to in where he also the opposed to trade at the of (Langford 1981–2015, In doing Burke a little to Davenant, who argued for Irish commercial in of (on Davenant, see the As has recently been Burke as simply a market or would be (Collins 2020: this dichotomy would necessarily the aspects of his political thought, which are to his idea of the last few decades, scholars have both and arguments in Burke's political In they have that aspects of his thinking on political economy are the of his political Burke's political economy was in the sense that he attention to the role of institutions a broad including manners, property, and in social His political economy and so long as general of especially property, were (Sato of this study should be to broader historical As suggested Burke's economic arguments can be in eighteenth-century on and It is also clear that not all of his economic ideas (e.g., his of were necessarily related to the of his political thought his idea of which was to his thinking on However, to the implications of Burke's economic thought, broader contextual and comparative research is would to and Bourke for their comments on and of the early of this I also to for the reference to