ABSTRACT
The differences between David Hume (1711-76) and James Steuart (1712-80) are more often stressed than the similarities. Hume is treated as a precursor of Adam Smith – the two were close friends, and both generally supported freedom of trade and freedom from burdensome regulation – while Steuart is seen as Smith’s defeated opponent – he placed little trust in unregulated markets and argued the need for a ‘statesman’ to guide the economy. These differences are real enough, but I shall argue that they conceal an almost identical theory of the causes of development and underdevelopment, as they would now be called. 1
Hume set the theory out first, and Steuart followed in his footsteps – the two were very near contemporaries, but Hume’s Political Discourses predate Steuart’s Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy by fifteen years. Like other eighteenth-century writers Steuart rarely acknowledged his sources. He was certainly familiar with Hume’s writings, since he referred to them more than once, cited Hume as a ‘great master of political reasoning’ ( Principles : 339), 2 wrote extensive notes on Hume’s History , and sent the Principles to Hume for comments before publishing it. Parts of the Principles were written as early as the 1750s, but the content of the draft of 1759 shows that Steuart was familiar with Hume’s work, probably in translation. 3
I shall use the (modern) term ‘development’ to describe a process in which a low-productivity, mainly agricultural, system gives way to a system with a greatly expanded urban manufacturing sector and a much higher level of internal and/or external trade – in Steuart’s phrase, ‘the regular progress of mankind, from great simplicity to complicated refinement’ ( Principles : 28). The details will emerge as the argurment proceeds. I should emphasize that this paper is concerned only with the theory of development (as I have defined it) and specifically with the common elements in the theories of Hume and Steuart. I shall make no attempt to discuss their work in more general terms. 4
I shall present the basic theory first, citing both authors side-by-side to show how closely Steuart followed Hume, before showing how Hume put the theory to use in his monumental History of England . I shall then discuss the treatment of money, population growth, investment, and foreign trade. Some differences between Hume and Steuart will emerge, though the divergence was by no means
as complete as the conventional view suggests. Finally, I shall discuss their reasons for preferring a developed, ‘commercial’ society to a state of ‘ancient simplicity’, and the possibility that Mandeville anticipated both of them.
