ABSTRACT
We are now in a position to see why Smith can be profitably considered a contractarian thinker and what is distinctive about his form of contract theory. Smith’s evolutionary approach is a move away from the constructivist, threshold contract theory to a developmental, continuous testing approach to the social contract. In traditional contract theories, once the contractual standard is set, all the justificatory work is done. From then on, the relevant political and moral question is about obligation or obedience to justice, not justification. This is not the case for Smith. Each stage of society is a kind of stable contract or equilibrium point that society must go along with. Adam Smith should be understood as a non-constructivist contractarian that
uses the contract idea to test the equilibria that are produced by historical, evolutionary processes. The historical element is essential to Smtih’s approach. Smith argues that our institutions are the product of contingent historical processes but also that some institutions are more mutually beneficial than others. In 1803, the editor of the Edinburgh Review wrote that Adam Smith attempted to:
Trace back the history of society to the most simple and universal elements – to resolve almost all that had been ascribed to positive institutions into the spontaneous and irresistible development of certain obvious principles – and to show with how little contrivance or political wisdom the most complicated and apparently artificial schemes of policy might have been created.
