ABSTRACT
So far we have been discussing the reasons for the difference in material well-being of different individuals. But the title of Adam Smith's famous book suggests that the ques tion which first aroused interest in Political Economy was not “ Why are some individuals better off than others ? ” but “ Why are some nations better off than others ? ” The question as to why people living in one area are better off than those living in another is still a matter of dis cussion, though of less intense interest than that as to differences in individual wealth. The area most often discussed is that of the political unit known as “ the nation." From an economic point of view there is no reason why we should compare the wealth of nations rather than that of cities or counties; why, for instance, we should compare the wealth of England and France rather than that of Sussex and Yorkshire or Portsmouth and Manchester. But as a matter of fact, though town and county patriotism do survive in a somewhat attenuated form, they have no longer the vital force that national patriotism still possesses. Therefore, the question of national wealth has an interest which does not attach to that of town or county. Moreover, the matter is often discussed with reference to a change of laws and the most important laws-or at any rate those that are most discussed-are national and not local ones. Finally, a good deal of the statistical information upon which estimates of wealth are based is available for national, but not fqj local areas. Therefore, though in theory we can disculs the
relative well-being of towns, counties or even parishes, in practice it is nearly always the nation that is the chosen unit. The writer proposes to follow ordinary usage and to discuss the wealth of nations, hoping that it is clear that some other unit could have been chosen.
