The Physiocrats and Henry George
Axel Fraenckel
[A paper presented at the 4th International
Conference of the International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free
Trade, Edinburgh, Scotland, 29 July to 4 August, 1929]
When Henry George wrote his first book, he did not know the French
Physiocrats of the second half of the 18th century even by name. Later
he read only the short expositions of their doctrine that are to be
found in English books. He did not know French, and translations as
well as exhaustive accounts of those exponents of the impot unique
(the " Single Tax " men of their day) were wanting in
English. From what he had heard about them, George supposed that in
their "single tax" the Physiocrats meant equal rights to
land through land value taxation. At any rate, the Physiocrats did
call for the abolition of all taxes, full Free Trade, and one single
tax on land ; and they used arguments based upon natural law which
were nearly the same as those of George ; and George mentioned them
with enthusiasm in Progress and Poverty (Book VIII, Chap. 4),
Protection or Free Trade (Chaps. 2 and 26) and The Science
of Political Economy (Book II, Chap. 5, and Book III, Chap. 6). He
even calls his own adherents " neo-physiocrats," and
dedicated his Protection or Free Trade to Quesnay and his
friends in very warm words.
It may be that even if he had realized what the doctrines of the
Physiocrats really were, George would still have dedicated his Free
Trade book to that French school since its services to the Free Trade
cause were beyond question. George knew the contribution of the
Physiocrats to Liberalism and he knew that Adam Smith had intended to
dedicate his principal work to Quesnay. The old doctor died, however,
two years before the Wealth of Nations saw the light in 1776.
From a closer study of their works, George would further have
appreciated the ideas of freedom that in spite of all else did run
through their teachings; and he would have seen the important part
they played in fields other than political economy in its narrow
interpretation. "I ask not veneration of the form but the
recognition of the spirit," he said in his address on Moses;
by straining it a little the same remark might apply, so far as the
Physiocrats are concerned. The social truth, as Henry George has said,
is never new, and George was always glad when he heard of others who
had given voice to ideas the same as, or similar to, his own.
One thing alone would have attracted George to the Physiocrats -
their denunciation of the old system of taxation and their views in
regard to the functions of the State - even though these philosophers,
starting from almost the same premises, and applying apparently the
same means, made proposals the exact opposite of his own in
strengthening the time-honoured forms of individual rights to
property.
The tribute to the French philosophers in Protection or Free
Trade would possibly have been paid even if George had known their
ideas. But he would have had his enthusiasms modified somewhat, and
there would have been less misunderstanding about the Physiocrats in
the succeeding decades.
I. The Physiocrats were, of course, far from being
without forerunners. Their spiritual ancestors may be found among the
stoics of old as well as among moderns like Cantillon and Locke. But
they were the first to proclaim so vigorously the existence of
external and unchangeable natural laws that could not be disobeyed.
They should always be remembered because they maintained - often with
far-fetched or false arguments and more with the intuition of genius
than with profound researches-that there need be no conflict between
the community and the individual; that the social edifice had its
origin not only in power, but also in justice and moral law.
They realized that fixed laws ruled economic phenomena, and in all
earnestness they analysed these laws far beyond the limits of the
community, glancing at the same time at the historical development and
at various institutions of social life. They were ardent Free Traders
and pacifists, and the wild man of the school, Turgot, as Minister
effected important reforms. They inspired reforms to the benefit of
the farming population throughout Europe and were the forerunners of
modern international law. They saw the dangers of national debts, not
least of which is the creation of false capital. Dupont de Nemours saw
in time the dangers of inflation in the seventeen-nineties, and fought
it politically, partly with success.
Man was, according to their opinion, influenced by two principles:
the feeling towards association, and the motive of personal interest.
It was only in appearance that these principles were in opposition to
one another. Taken together, they created harmony. In order that human
powers may flourish, personal freedom must be fundamental in social
life. But if the individual is to be allowed freely to carry on his
trade and develop his talents and abilities the right of private
property must be maintained. To own goods and chattels was a means of
self-support and property in land was merely an extension of such
ownership, because all labour had its basis on the land. The right to
own land was, therefore, the goal and the compensation of labour. By
that, everyone would reap the benefit; and who would undertake the
outlay unless private property was fully secured? It was
Turgot who defended private property in land in the name of "human
conventions arid civil laws." Without such security the physical
laws of social life decreed by the Creator could not assert
themselves. Thus these philosophers were sworn advocates of private
property in land, and (be it well noted) did not at all seek to have
it shared among a greater number. Like the classical economists, they
failed to see that there was a monopoly element that could and should
be eliminated without violation to individual responsibility and
without reducing the returns to labour. They were optimists, looking
lightly upon the poverty problem. Their fight for Free Trade and a
single tax on land has made many people, although quite wrongly, think
of them as predecessors of Henry George. They lived before the time of
great cities with their manufactures and the speculation in rapidly
increasing land values. They stood for quite a different system of
taxation than that advocated by Henry George, and aimed at anything
but the better distribution of land or the raising of wages.
The Physiocrats believed that only the agricultural industry could
give a social surplus or "net product." They were impressed
by the principle of growth and by the wealth of resources that lie in
Nature. Here in this constant revival was the assistant of the
landowner. They lived at a time when the great landowners were often
mere rent-drawers and tenants did the work on the land. So it might be
that the Physiocrats overlooked the social and economic importance of
commerce and industry. Of course, they knew well enough that these
occupations also were essential but they did not hold the opinion that
they yielded the community a final or net surplus. Therefore, it was
the land - that is, the agricultural land - that ought to pay all the
expenses of the community. Urban land was never mentioned, and if
George had only read a tolerably good English version of their
writings his suspicions would have been aroused. The Physiocrats held
the view that in the last analysis all taxes fell upon agriculture, no
other industry being able to pay them. At that time the French people
were plagued by the most oppressive taxes, which at the same time gave
vicious privileges to certain classes. All business was hindered in
this way, but still worse were the customs tariffs and the great
number of foolish provincial duties. The Physiocrats took very little
interest in the purely social effects of all this harmful taxation;
Turgot alone touched upon that question. They believed, however, that
the system indirectly caused great poverty, and that trade and
conditions would be better for all if that system was abolished. And
for that reason also they advocated a single tax on the " net
product " from agricultural land. In that way the purchasing
power of the people would be greatly increased, and so there would be
restored to agriculture the amount which, according to the
calculations of the Physiocrats though it was not equal to the account
rendered by Providence, should be paid in taxation. Did not
agriculture feed us all? They reckoned that 30 per cent per annum of
the "net product" would suffice, and they estimated the "net
product" at 2,000 million livres yearly. Necker's Budget for 1781
amounted to 610 millions, which was nearly as much as the proposed tax
on land.
The Physiocrats believed, and here they were quite right as in much
else they criticised, that the existing taxation system cost far too
much to industrial life and to the people. Several of them, and Turgot
was inclined to agree, computed that agriculture paid in these taxes
more than double the amount (owing to the cost of administration) it
would have paid to a tax assessed on the '' net product''; and it
seems that they did not take into this account the indirect benefits
that were to be expected. Land taxation was clear and simple and could
not be concealed. They demanded their "single tax " for the
good of agriculture and the community. It was shown what agriculture
must be rid of, if it was to be saved from decay. Security and
property rights would be strengthened.
To the objection that the tax would not yield enough, they replied,
as Georgeists do to-day, that society must keep its expenses within
its proper revenues. They wished to limit the expenses of the State
much on the same plan as the Justice League in Denmark propose to-day.
Mercier de la Riviere was foremost in urging that the King should not
make laws, as laws had already been prescribed by the Natural Order -
by Providence.
As a shareholder in the "single tax," it was to the
interest of the Sovereign that private property should be preserved
and that the "net product" should increase. The modern
Georgeist also regards the ground rent contribution as a measure of
the wealth belonging to the community and of the means afforded to the
politicians for administration. Like many who stand to-day for equal
rights, the Physiocrats sought to escape the word "tax."
They often showed how legitimate their single tax was by calling it a
"loyer" or rental payment, nearly synonymous with the Danish
word "skyld" or the Greek "leiturgia" of Solon's
time. George is on the same ground in Chap, xxv of his Protection
or Free Trade.
The Physiocrats had no perception of economic rent or of land values
as such. Even if the "net product" often does represent the
ground rent, the Physiocratic taxation cannot stand comparison in any
respect with the Taxation of Land Values which applies to all land
including the uncultivated as well as the land in towns; the
Physiocratic tax would take only 30 per cent of the approximate ground
rent of such farm land as is used.
Quesnay seems to have had a vague understanding of Land Value, and in
an isolated passage there is an argument resembling that of the
Georgeists; but as to any change in social conditions, such as George
believed was possible, there was never a hint. Quesnay utters words of
warning in regard to the sacredness of property rights: -
"The ownership of landed and personal property must
be assured to those who are their legitimate owners, since the
security of property is the essential foundation of the economical
order of society. Without the assurance of ownership, land would
remain waste." - (Maximes Generales 5.)
And Dupont says: "The object of this taxation is the
preservation of property rights " (Ed., Daire, p. 351);
while Mercier insisted that " taxation must never undermine the
sacred rights of property " (Ed., Daire, p. 447).
Quesnay is the champion of the great estates and declares that to tax
the labourer is to put a burden on labour; but the argument is that it
is the employer who is the real payer! He declaimed against the view
that low prices of corn were good for the people, his view being that
low corn prices meant low wages and would decrease the "net
product." Turgot expressed a similar opinion. It is interesting
to notice that Quesnay thought the decline and fall of the Roman
Empire was due to the decay of her agriculture; but he does not
deplore, as George did, the way in which the land was appropriated by
the few. He did not look on that as a calamity nor see in it the cause
of decline.
It is no wonder that only comparatively few prominent men outside
this narrow circle favoured this dangerous form of individualism. In
vain the elder Mirabeau tried to convert Rousseau. Voltaire satirized
them in L'homme aux quarante Ecus, and Mably, a clergyman, in
his Doutes proposes aux Philosophes Economistes. with vigour
and with much talent, criticized the attitude of the philosophers
towards private property. It is characteristic that while Mably
devotes two-thirds of his book to contesting Mercier's legal despotism
and otherwise opposed the Physiocratic view on private property, he
does not go into the common-sense suggestions and proposals regarding
tax abolition, and relief to agriculture and commerce, although he
gives the philosophers credit for that. This shows how little
attention is paid to sensible things when criticism exerts itself in
other directions.
II. The peculiarity of the "net product"
is its purely material character. It is above all something tangible
and perceptible. It is the result of Nature's co-operation with man.
Economic rent, on the other hand, is a value not material in
character. Other theoretical distinctions might also be mentioned.
Emile Rivaud, in his book
Henry George et la Physiocratie (Paris, 1907), written as a
thesis for his doctorate, shows how the "net product" and
economic rent are mutually dependent on one another. He writes (p.
35): -
"The net product exists in the shape of wealth as
soon as man applies himself to the land which creates it. but its
value is levied by the owner in the shape of rent only from the time
when the increase of demand compels men to turn themselves towards
less fruitful lands. Originally, as material wealth actually
produced, it manifests itself only as a displacement of wealth in
the shape of rent; and that is the reason why Ricardo was able to
say that rent was but a creation of value. But the creation of value
supposes a previous creation of wealth, offered by Nature. The
creation of a rent for land is conceivable only in so far as that
land produces more wealth than another for the same amount of
effort, so that the 'net product' in value is eventually integrally
expressed by the rate of the Ricardian rent and becomes coincident
with it."
In other words, economic rent presupposes a net product, and the
latter can only be expressed through economic rent. The Physiocrats
did not realize this, because they did not see the influence of social
development. They did not see that the value of commodities varies in
relation to demand, but fastened upon the quantity of production and
the effect of that on prices and other circumstances.
George saw well enough that the two conceptions approached one
another, and then the agreeable-looking programme of the Physiocrats
brought him to the wrong conclusion. He was, however, quite clear
about the mistaken view of the Physiocrats that agriculture was the
only occupation that can yield "a surplus," and he believed
that this mistake - which in his attachment to the school he thought
might be a case of confusing terminology - was the reason why the
programme of the philosophers did not succeed. Strangely enough, he
did not then observe their omissions in regard to urban land values
and perhaps this would have opened his eyes to the true facts of the
case.
Another thing that helps to understand his misconception is that, in
his Science of Political Economy, George states that he got
his information mainly from Macleod's Elements of Economy
(1881), from which he quotes a long extract. It was excellent matter,
sure to have filled George with enthusiasm and dealing with many of
the Physiocratie meditations on natural law by which he himself was
guided, although on quite a different road than that taken by the
French school.
When one consults Macleod's book, only a few lines are to be found
dealing with the "net product," with the promise to return
to the subject in a succeeding chapter - which never comes! A similar
promise never fulfilled is found in the previous edition (1872). This
case is a warning to writers; the sins of the fathers are inherited.
The distinguished Danish Economist, Professor L. V. Birck, recently
wrote in a Swedish review (Statvetenskapligt Tidsskrift) as
follows : -
"The law in regard to the rent of land is again
under discussion, partly because the number of people both across
the sea and in Europe who believe in the Georgeistic tax on the rent
of land, is increasing, partly because we again are forced to
investigate the old Physiocratic doctrine that ultimately all
taxation comes out of the rent of land."
Of course this author knows his subject and it cannot be said that he
is altogether wrong in what he writes; but what he says is altogether
misleading.
Emile Rivaud, in the treatise already mentioned, which is not
sufficiently known, has not laid sufficient stress on what, from the
point of view of natural rights and morals, attracted George towards
the French philosophers. Nor does Rivaud mention Macleod. He says at
the end of his book that the Physiocrats might have been a little less
optimistic if they had foreseen the future conditions of the
wage-earners in a state of society less individualistic than theirs.
But, he adds, they never would allow anyone to throw a critical glance
at their dogma of private property.
Thinkers cannot, however, transport their minds from the present to a
succeeding epoch, especially as there has been such an immense change
in the whole picture of society and of the world. And one body of
people who think on the same lines at one time seldom do so at
another. The Physiocrats went as far as anyone can go in a
radical-individualistic direction without proposing measures to break
the land monopoly. George regrets that in the French Revolution the
aspirations of the Physiocrats went down. When the land taxes of the
early Revolution and some ten years before - taxes that had only a
slight tinge of Physiocratic colour - were gradually reduced and
ultimately ceased to be of consequence, the deeper cause was neither
the Revolution nor the above-mentioned misconception of agriculture as
the sole productive industry.[1] It is important to bear in mind that
the revolutionaries, excepting Marat and Robespierre, who from 1791 to
1793 maintained that the land belonged to all, deprecated any agrarian
legislation. The blame for this was the Physiocratic influence with
its bewildering teaching in the matter of property rights. So it was
that in 1793 the death penalty was meted to those who even proposed "lois
agraires" or spoke against property-rights, and that was at a
time when human life did not count for much. The Physiocrats caused
the land problem to evaporate. The social contract and welfare ideas
of Locke and Rousseau became predominant - people could understand
them. The other ideas, in view of their inconsequence in the popular
mind, found no soil for growth. Even to-day there is hardly any
country where more than in France it is so difficult to deal with the
vested forms of property rights; that is, with the monopoly in land.
Even the Communists do not venture to talk about landed rights and
privileges. The Physiocratic doctrine certainly contributed to the
misunderstanding on the land question that came with and after the
Revolution, and it gave people at a later stage trust in the belief
that all was well.
History allows no sudden jump. The first confusion having been caused
in the matter of property rights, Adam Smith and the Liberalism of
followers had to run the whole course. It was then that Henry George
came to banish what is essentially a monopoly standing in the way of
free competition, and so laid the foundation for a real revival of the
ideas of natural rights.
This, of course, is not written in order to disparage those
philosophers whose versatility and wide vision has been indicated, but
to try and put them in their proper place. Some Georgeist writers are
inclined to advance the claims of these men at the expense of
Rousseau. It is true that Rousseau's views on State and Property were
objectionable from a Georgeist point of view, and that by contrast
with the philosophers of "the natural order" he got hold of
the wrong end of Locke's ideas. These in turn were illogical and
brought much perplexity. But the Physiocrats did the same with their
doctrine, which did injury to the solution of the land question and of
the social problem. But Rousseau, too, has to be studied by reference
to his own time and his predecessors. (His greatness lies especially
in his having stood for democracy and in his views on education.)
Still it may be possible that the social-individualistic
development could have made headway if the Physiocratic ideas really
could have succeeded and if these ideas had been accompanied
by rational land taxation and Free Trade. But they could not,
because they had other tendencies with which people were not willing
to be associated. The genuine Physiocracy was tried only in Baden by
an admirer of the French school, the Margrave Carl Friederich, who,
advised by the Physiocrats, carried through their "single tax"
in certain local districts. It proved ineffective if not disastrous,
but. as his French friend said, that was only because the districts
were too small. It may be mentioned that Baden was the German province
which, fifty years ago, was foremost in farming legislation. The
village council owned the land in common, and when young couples
married they at the same time took over some acres and the right of
possessing them for lifetime. Every child born in wedlock was given
the right to a new plot of land, and what was not so assigned for use
was ceded to the highest bidder. Whether it is the Physiocratic spirit
that has thus lived through several generations and found such
contradictory and interesting expression may be left for discussion.
III.
We now see what unites and what distinguishes the two economic
schools and what might make it appear that they stand for the same
thing. We also see where those two conceptions of Society approach one
another and where they widely differ; where they have the same goal
but very different motives; finally, where they had different aims
although using the same arguments.
The Physiocratic view on the functions of the State and the limits
that should be imposed is interesting. It comes near to the
Georgeistic view and it approved means that had more than an outward
semblance to those of George. In Denmark there is a philosophic school
which has carried George's ideas farther, and has formed a political
party. This school maintains that equal rights can only be established
when the rent of land is used for common purposes in the strictest
sense of the term. Although George criticizes State Philanthropy and
sees many of the dangers that surround modern democracy, nevertheless
he considered that some part of the rent of land might be spent upon
social or educational objects.
The French school wished to preserve land ownership in the hands of
one small class. George advocated the extension of land ownership by a
change in the form of property rights.
The right of the community to the values created by the community
and the right of the individual to the values created by his labour
-and in that way - the equal rights of all to the land.
In spite of all, George was related to the Physiocrats because they
were pioneers' to that Liberalism he wished to see developed further.
The Physiocrats formed the first school of national economy and were
the forerunners of modern sociology.
One of the many reasons why the Physiocrats ought to be remembered is
that they were not bewildered by the complicated nature of society,
but proposed simple methods for social betterment. Both national
economy and sociology have unfortunately stared themselves blind at
details without understanding what liberation really meant. It is
essentially a sociological question to analyse the relation between
the individual and the community, and here George has given the most
valuable contribution. According to him, all brilliant epochs in the
history of mankind were marked by the spirit of liberty and all
periods of reaction by the opposite spirit. Here he has given
Sociology a fingerpost in the study in the various eras of
civilization. Sociology investigates the various forms of property
rights to which George gave a new form.
While political economists can easily criticize the Physiocrats, they
have only been able to attack George with arguments which are
gradually getting fewer and more timid, only expressing doubt as to
the possibility of its practical operation. But that is a matter of
politics. Justice cannot be reconciled with injustice. A just state
can be gradually established, having regard to the present complicated
structure of social life and with fairness to landowners in the method
adopted. So it is with all progress. Meanwhile, there need be no rash
action. The claims of a single generation of monopoly-holders must not
obstruct a policy the principle of which is eternal. Moreover, it is
proved that the existing taxes are a heavy burden upon the whole
community. These taxes are so costly in their effects, and the values
that will be created by establishing equal rights should be so
manifold that a relatively rapid adoption of the full policy should
involve economic loss only to a very small section of the people. Here
also the Physiocrats saw something new, in the light of which they
affirmed (what was altogether an exaggeration) that all taxes were
ultimately borne by agriculture. George declared that the taxes were
paid by land and by labour, and that to-day is the common opinion.
George's fundamental outlook on social development is beyond
challenge. His doctrine of equal right is challenged only by those who
think that differences in ability or faculties call for more State
action than deemed necessary by him and especially by many of his
present-day followers. But his outlook on social development and his
conception of equal rights cannot be weakened by considerations of
that kind ; and, as it happens, the practical turn taken by Socialists
to-day seems to follow his standard rather than that of Marx.
When Europe fully recovers from the post-War effects - which will not
be possible as long as thirty tariff barriers exist and co-operation
is far to seek - it is possible that new invention and discovery will
create new riches and will hasten such social developments that they
who get it on the ground floor will make great fortunes; the power of
special privilege will be increased, leading to conflict between
classes and nations and ultimately to new wars.
The vital importance of social co-operation has been emphasized by no
one more than by Henry George. By contrast with the Physiocrats he saw
that only by lessening the differences in social conditions was it
possible to bring about the much-desired social co-operation. He
showed how progress stimulated the co-operation which the Physiocrats
had already conceived in regard to collaboration between nations and
as Turgot had put into practice between the French provinces. Since
that time, technical progress has reduced distances to such an extent
that the suppression of European customs would be a parallel to the
reform Turgot carried through when he suppressed the internal French
customs.
Georgeism holds that all progress is more or less delusive so long as
the land does not belong to the whole people and only a minority enjoy
the fruits of progress. Again the difference between the Physiocrats
and Henry George shows itself clearly. He simplified one of the
world's greatest problems by making the land question a land value
question, pointing out the difference between the substance and its
value. He provided a new conception of justice, and ought long ago to
have influenced scientific thought in greater degree, seeing that he
was the first to give a new and logical foundation to natural rights.
Yet we have to recognize that the human mind moves slowly, that
political economy is still young among the sciences and that society
finds itself in a mesh of rights and wrongs.
The signs of the times indicate that the political economists are not
all apathetic about the establishment of that equal right which alone
can purge social conditions and purify social life.
The relation between the Physiocrats and George builds the road
between two significant stopping-places in the train of thought.
Liberalism means free competition, but this can only exist when the
monopoly is abolished that now obstructs and makes it a caricature.
Remedies to relieve an immediate need may be worth while, provided
that they do not counter more durable progress. The older Liberalism
resorted to such means. But the new Liberalism marches only on and
along the road laid and paved by Henry George. For in the capitalistic
age it was George who made clear what was genuine and what was false
capital. And in his "rights of Nature" he did not forget the
rights to Nature.
NOTES
- In our time France has imposed
land-taxes which, it is very interesting to notice, introduce
really Physiocratic principles in legislation. Inflation has
however made them less important in spite of supplementary duties
on uncultivated land, etc.
|