Review by Publisher's Weekly Review
Harvard social studies researcher Liu debuts with an intricate and provocative analysis of Scottish moral philosopher Adam Smith's influence on U.S. politics and business. Though Smith has become synonymous with the notion that "individuals pursuing their self-interest could promote the public good without intention or direction," Liu argues that this reputation "is neither historically accurate nor was it inevitable." Contending that the contemporary understanding of Smith is an American invention of relatively recent provenance, she traces its roots to the Chicago School of Economics' doctrine "that rational self-interest is the only valid premise for the analysis of human behavior, and that only the invisible hand of the market... could guarantee personal and political freedom." Noting that Smith's writings have been mobilized to defend many different positions over the years, Liu analyzes his paradoxical reputations in revolutionary France, imperial Germany, and early America. The version of Smith that rose to predominance under the auspices of the Chicago School after the Great Depression found practical expression in neoliberal policies and has resulted in a rigid belief that "capitalism must survive" and an unwillingness to look for alternatives, according to Liu, who warns that "Americans might be captive to the very ideas of an Adam Smith that invented." Granular yet accessible, this is a rewarding reconsideration of an influential thinker. (Nov.)
(c) Copyright PWxyz, LLC. All rights reserved
Review by Library Journal Review
Liu (social studies, Harvard) explores the impact of the Scottish philosopher Adam Smith (1723--90) on American capitalism. Using much archival material, Liu explains how Smith's 1776 book The Wealth of Nations shaped American economic and political ideas in the 19th century and posthumously turned the unassuming Enlightenment philosopher into "the father of political economic theory." And after the Great Depression, the conservative Chicago School of Economics selected ideas from Smith's writing that they used to advocate an economy of free trade and self-interest. Liu suggests that such ahistorical invention is responsible for the popular misconception that Smith was a true believer in the miracle of free markets. She also explores the current generation of theorists who seek to restore Smith's reputation as a moral philosopher. VERDICT This book should be part of library collections on economic and social thought. Liu's recontextualization of Adam Smith will be of interest to scholars as well as general audiences.--Claude Ury
(c) Copyright Library Journals LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Media Source, Inc. No redistribution permitted.
Review by Kirkus Book Review
The iconic economist has become all things to all people over time, from Friedman-esque libertarian to anti-capitalist crusader. Adam Smith (1723-1790), writes Harvard fellow Liu, was one of the brightest stars of the Scottish Enlightenment, with broad interests that ranged from law and rhetoric to philosophy and economics. Today, scholars are more inclined to link his notion of "moral sentiments"--that is to say, the bonds of social contract that make people want to conduct themselves honestly in business--to developments that he would spell out in The Wealth of Nations. The "invisible hand" evoked therein is one complexity. Another involves what Smith deemed self-interest, which, Liu suggests, does not mean dog-eat-dog but instead something approaching the golden rule: Trade fairly and freely with me, and I will do so with you. Yet his name has been hijacked as "shorthand for the virtues of free markets and the vices of government intervention in economic affairs." The Founding Fathers put Smith's ideas to work in constructing federalism precisely because they "appealed to enlightenment sensibilities about how to understand the governing dynamics of man in society." For reasons of his own, Thomas Jefferson seems to have preferred French economists such as Jean-Baptiste Say, while Smith's near-contemporary Alexander Hamilton "borrowed Smith's distinction between 'dead' and 'live' stock to illustrate how banks did more than circulate precious metals." Liu argues that Smith's largely laissez faire attitudes did not mean a complete lack of government intervention, but the Chicago school of economics distorted his message in order to prove that self-interest meant, above all else, the "narrow desire for wealth." Even if Chicago, the Heritage Foundation, and other right-leaning entities have tried to seize him for their cause, Liu examines the possibility that he may be "closer to the values of the contemporary left"--thus are the many ambiguities in his work. A bracing study not just of Smith's ideas, but also of how scholars and activists have used (and misused) them. Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
Copyright (c) Kirkus Reviews, used with permission.
