ABSTRACT
One of the differences between the economic writing of Adam Smith and that of Jean-Baptiste Say is the nature of the class analysis. Writing forty years before the publication of the Wealth of Nations, Cantillon had conceived of wages, profits and interest as the incomes of three distinct social classes, and had emphasised the role of the entrepreneur as an individual who earns his profit by buying at certain spot prices and selling at uncertain future prices
(Blaug 1986:38). Smith similarly adopted a tripartite division of society, this time distinguishing between capitalists, workers and landlords, but eliminated an explicit consideration of the role of the entrepreneur as distinct from the capitalist. Say criticised Smith’s division, arguing that it consistently confused
capitalists, or people who live exclusively off the interest generated by their property, and entrepreneurs who earn their return through their active organisation of enterprise (Hashimoto 1980:71; cf. Forget 1993). In place of Smith’s tripartite division, he recognised five functional classes in society. Capitalists sell the services of capital and receive the profits of stock, or interest. Landlords sell the services of land and receive the profits of land stock, or rent. And three groups of ‘ industrials’ , including scholars, entrepreneurs and workers (the last of which could be further subdivided into various skill levels), sell their labour and earn the profits of industry for their active role in production.1 Capitalists might trade their profits of stock to entrepreneurs in exchange for interest income, and landowners might trade their profits of land stock to entrepreneurs for rent. Similarly, scholars and workers might trade their profits of industry to entrepreneurs in exchange for salaries. That is, everyone except the entrepreneur might receive a certain contractual income from the entrepreneur who hopes to earn an additional return by creating a product that sells for more than he was obliged to pay for the requisite services (see Say 1843:55ff.). Say’s analysis is purely functional. He recognises that individuals may belong
to several classes at the same time as their economic roles change:
A man may belong to several classes. When a farmer experiments with grafting or pruning trees in order to obtain better fruit, he undertakes research which augments his knowledge, his science; he tries to apply this to human industry; and he undertakes his ideas himself. He is, truly, for this product in particular, scholar, entrepreneur and worker.
