ABSTRACT
Adam Smith overhauled the issue of unproductive labour so thoroughly that he doomed the earlier debate to oblivion, except the physiocratic position. His analysis proved decisive in all subsequent treatments of the issue. Most historians are convinced that Smith borrowed the concept of unproductive labour from physiocracy and see the concept as erroneous. Smith concedes that agricultural labourers are more productive because, he says, they produce a rent as well as the funds for wages and profit. Most commentators have neglected the historical context in which Smith approached the issue of unproductive labour, while also failing to recognise the Enlightenment authors' scathing indictment – Smith's first and foremost – of the parasitic customs of the aristocracy which hindered European development. Germain Garnier was the model for most of the critics who rejected Smith's distinction. Since Smith's treatment had swept away all the earlier reflections, the discredit that befell it also implied failure on the entire issue.
