アダム・スミスの正しい見方
●Edwin G. West（1993）, “Simplicity versus Complexity in Adam Smith: The Intellectualsʹ Dilemma（pdf）”（Quadrant: Australian Review of Ideas, Vol.37, No.3）
Introduction
With the economic collapse of communism and the return to free markets, the doctrines of Adam Smith are enjoying a substantial revival. Some intellectuals, however, appear disturbed about the event. For some, no doubt, this is because Smith is displacing their long-time ʹnaturalʹ favourite, Karl Marx. For others the problem is more subtle. Consider, for example, two almost opposite positions of other critics: the first strongly objects to the brash claims of politicians (like Reagan) to be Adam Smith followers on the grounds that they are too simplistic. Smith, it is insisted, is much more complex. The second position is that it is Smith's world that is too simple whereas it is modern society that is more complex. In my opinion, nevertheless, both positions betray considerable misinterpretation of the eminent Scotsman.
あたかもアダム・スミスが手放しで自由放任を擁護していたかのように捉える見方は「単純」にすぎるという立場（＝第1の立場；「アダム・スミスはそんなに「単純」な存在ではなくてもっと「複雑」なお方なのだよ」）がある一方、アダム・スミスが分析対象とした経済社会は「単純」な社会であり、そのアダム・スミスの分析を産業革命後の「複雑」な経済社会にそのまま当てはめることはできないという立場（＝第2の立場）がある。第1の立場は潜在的にアダム・スミスの現代的有効性を信じる立場であり、第2の立場はアダム・スミスの現代的有効性に懐疑的な立場である、という大きな違いがあるけれども、著者のEdwin Westは両方の立場ともに歪んだアダム・スミス像に立っているとして批判を加える。
第1の立場に対しては第1の立場の主張そのもの（＝アダム・スミスは手放しで自由放任を擁護したわけではない）には異議はないけれども、第1の立場に立つ人々がアダム・スミスの自由市場に対する批判を強調しすぎるきらいがある点*1（例えば分業のマイナス面を強調しすぎたり、また分業の悪影響を資本主義社会に特有の病弊であるかのように捉えたりするなどして）を批判し、第2の立場に対してはアダム・スミスの議論は我々が生きる「複雑」な社会に対しても有益な洞察を与えてくれるとして種々の例を挙げて反駁する。第2の立場への批判の中でも特に重要な指摘は、「アダム・スミスはジョイントストックカンパニー（現在の株式会社）に対してアプリオリに否定的な評価を下していたわけではない」という点であり、この点はWestも文中で触れているようにAnderson=Tollison論文に詳しい。
第1の立場でもなく第2の立場でもない第3の立場に立つEdwin Westの結論は“He was certainly not naively simple; but neither was he impossibly complex; with such qualities and with such wisdom he is surely a man for all times.”（確かにアダム・スミスはそんなに単純な存在ではない。かといって我々常人の理解を超えるほどに複雑な存在であるというわけでもない。質が高く英知溢れるアダム・スミスの議論はいつの時代にも通用するものなのである。）
Anderson＝Tollison論文は随分前に読んだことあるけれども、この機会にもう一度読み直しておこう。Archibald論文はあとでコピーする。
●Gary M. Anderson and Robert D. Tollison（1982）, “Adam Smith's Analysis of Joint-Stock Companies”,（Journal of Political Economy, vol.90(6), pp.1237-1256）
●G. C. Archibald（1992）, “Three classical economists on trouble, strife, and the 'alienation' of labour”（Canadian Journal of Economics, vol.25(1), pp.60-75）
Edwin Westによる（ネットで読める）その他のスミス論はこちらを参照。
（追記）
●Karen Horn, “Why Adam Smith Still Matters”（Standpoint.Online, April 2009）
John Maynard Keynes is high in the list of bestselling books now. Adam Smith is not quite as popular. The reason is not that books from the 18th century tend to be a demanding read: Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, although from the 20th century, is no piece of cake either. Instead, the present global financial crisis has made the godfather of classical economics look strikingly irrelevant in comparison with Keynes, the inventor of modern disequilibrium theory. Even worse, now that bankers are being castigated as the incarnation of greed, blindness and irresponsibility, the man who wrote in his famous Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations that "it is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker" - or perhaps the banker in our day - "that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest" is again accused of being the chief advocate of heartless laissez-faire capitalism, a system that failed and had to fail. In this view, capitalism is nothing but a false religion, with Mammon as its god and Smith as its high priest. Critics worry that markets need a moral foundation that they automatically erode. They ridicule the naïve belief that free markets bring everybody happiness at no cost, a conviction allegedly lacking all philosophical underpinnings.
This is entirely off the mark. The last thing one can say about Smith is that he lacked philosophical depth. A moral philosopher, Smith was a figure of the Scottish Enlightenment, a progressive school of philosophy with members including Francis Hutcheson, David Hume and Adam Ferguson. Their approach was inspired by Isaac Newton, perhaps the greatest scientist ever. His deep persuasion was that simply observing reality enables us to discover the underlying natural principles. The Scottish Enlightenment thinkers aimed at shedding light on the laws governing human behaviour, and on their consequences for life in society.
（追々記）
Karen Horn氏の（上にリンクを貼り付けた）論説の以下の記述、
In the Wealth of Nations, Smith again couches his analysis in the terms of a feedback process in society. While the Theory of Moral Sentiments basically describes an ongoing process of exchange in the market for norms, Smith now turns to the market in the more narrow sense: the market for goods and services. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments, he now posits that there exists a "propensity in human nature...to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another." In order to feel this impulse to trade, one must not only own something to give in exchange, one must also desire something that someone else possesses. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments, what man strives for is praise. In the Wealth of Nations, it is some good or service. In both cases, this leads to exchange processes.
は、ブレナン＝ペティットのタッグによる一連の研究を想起させる。
●Geoffrey Brennan and Philip Pettit（1993）, “Hands Invisible and Intangible（pdf）”（Synthese, vol.94(2), pp.191-225）
●Geoffrey Brennan and Philip Pettit（2000）, “The Hidden Economy of Esteem（pdf）”（Economics and Philosophy, vol.16(1), pp.77-98）
