ABSTRACT
This comparison should help us appreciate the possibilities of different interpretations of the same phenomenon based on underlying differences in world views – what Schumpeter calls Weltanschauung – an aspect often overlooked in contemporary economic debate. One of the very few instances in which direct comparison between different approaches was at the centre of the stage was in the course of the Trieste Summer School on International Economic Studies, organised by Sergio Parrinello, in collaboration with Pierangelo Garegnani and Jan Kregel, from 1979 to 1990.2 The revival of the classical-Keynesian approach represented the driving force behind organisation of the School, and thus the confrontation between it and the marginalist-neoclassical mainstream; but at the same time the main element of interest which attracted scholars from all over the world to the Trieste School was the fact that, thanks to Parrinello, the School organisers and teaching staff included representatives from all the varieties of non-mainstream economics, from neo-Ricardian and post-Keynesian to evolutionary or institutionalist economists. And, although the focus of the School was mainly on theory and policy, the history of economic thought was systematically utilised as a tool for investigation into the different natures of the various approaches. Thus, I would like to see this essay considered as belonging to the Trieste School tradition. First of all (in section 2) I shall consider Smith’s views on the origins of the division of labour, traced to the human propensity for social life. The second step (in section 3) consists in illustrating the criticisms Smith’s views came in for immediately after publication of the Wealth of Nations from Thomas Pownall, a respected Member of Parliament, who recalled the long tradition focused on innate differences in abilities. We shall then discuss (in section 4) Paul Samuelson’s modern reformulation of the traditional view, presented in terms of the gender division of labour and Smith’s example of deer and beaver hunting. Finally (in section 5) I will endeavour to vindicate Smith’s original views against Samuelson’s subtle reformulation, while also commenting on the differences between the classical and marginalist approaches to economics.
