The Political Economy of British Historical Experience, 1688-1914 (review)

This collection of essays on British political economy produced to mark the centenary of the British Academy (1902–2002) is addressed more to historians (especially economic historians) than to historians of economic thought. However, some of the chapters at least recognize the relevance of reviewing the contemporary literature on the specific topics they address. After all, the definition of political economy (as expressly stated on page 139) includes doctrine contained in that literature. It is not simply confined to being a part of the institutional framework of the nation (such as land tenure, trade arrangements, empire, and fiscal and monetary arrangements and the "welfare state," to name the titles of four of the five sections that subdivide the book's contents). Historians of economics can nevertheless benefit from some of this material. Many of the portraits of British economic institutions in this book are of use to historians with an interest in British economic ideas, and several of them indicate a solid familiarity with the relevant economists' writings in their specific topics.

The book opens with a somewhat disappointing introductory essay by Donald Winch, disappointing because his awareness of the relevant literature seems to have stopped at 1990. (No citations of works published after that year are evident.) This is to be regretted, especially in the case of Marshall, whose work has been thoroughly reexamined after the Principles centenary, partly in the light of new evidence such as his recently published correspondence and from the reissue of some of his scarcer works. The issues Winch's introduction raises, however, remain of interest and provide a useful backdrop to what follows. Among other things, they include a succinct survey of the major doctrinal turning points over the long time span covered by the book. The three opening essays (in part 1) look at foreign observers of the British political economy institutions during the eighteenth century (Emma Rothschild), the first half of the nineteenth (Gareth Stedman Jones), and from 1870 to 1914 (James Thompson). The second of these is particularly interesting because it details some of Hegel's and J. B. Say's views on British institutions. Part 2 presents two chapters on British and Irish land tenure respectively, of which the second not only acknowledges the importance of contemporary literature but reviews that by J. S. Mill, T. E. Cliffe Leslie, J. E. Cairnes, and W. E. Hearn. Section 3 addresses trade and empire. Kenneth Morgan's essay deals with mercantilism and empire (1688–1815), but unlike deceased academician and economic historian Donald Coleman's treatment of mercantilism, its problematic definition is not raised as part of its contents, and Morgan largely ignores the immense English literature on mercantilism before 1776. Anthony Howe looks at the restoration of free trade, recognizing here the importance of Smith, Ricardo, William Huskisson, and the anti–Corn Law League, while Frank Trentmann examines post-1870 free trade and tariff reform in another disappointing essay. For example, his ascription of "ahistoricism" to Marshall's economics is incorrect and reveals a very limited acquaintance with Marshall's work. The same applies to Morgan's defense of William Cunningham (esp. pp. 216–17). Two final parts covering public finance aspects of British political economy greatly compensate for the weaknesses of some contributions to the earlier parts. Although O'Brien's essay on fiscal exceptionalism lacks references to the contemporary literature (apart from mentioning Edmund Burke) and would have greatly improved with a statistical overview, Julian Hoppit's essay on "checking Leviathan, 1688–1832," and Forrest Capie's on the Bank of England's development into a central bank are fully aware of that literature and mention it freely. Statistical dearth is avoided in the final two essays of part 4 on the political economy of taxation and public expenditure growth in...