Principles of Political Economy, Vol. 1

by Wilhelm Roscher

Critical History Of The Idea Of Productiveness.—The Doctrine Of The Physiocrates.

The doctrine of the Physiocrates is to be explained in part by a very natural reaction from the narrow-heartedness of the Mercantile System, and at the same time, by a presentiment, misunderstood, of the true theory of rent. (§ 150 ff.). Of the six classes of labor mentioned above (§ [38]), those only are called productive which increase the quantity of raw material useful for human ends. All the other classes, it matters not how useful, are called sterile, salaried, because they draw their income only from the superabundance of land-owners and the workers of the soil. Tradesmen, in the narrower sense of the term, produce only a change in the form of the material, the higher value of which depends on the quantity of other material consumed for the purposes of the tradesman's labor. If any of this material is saved, the value of their products sinks, although to the advantage of the economy of the whole nation. In any case, industry could create no wealth, but only make existing wealth more lasting. It might, so to speak, accumulate the value of the quantity of food consumed during the building of a house in the house itself.[313]

But if tradesmen really earned, in the value of their products, only what they had consumed during their labor, it would be difficult for them to find employers to provide them with capital. Everyone will acknowledge, that a Thorwaldsen and an ordinary stone-cutter, with the same block of marble, the same implements, the same food, would necessarily, after the same time, turn out exceedingly different values.[314] And, even in the case that industry should add to the raw material only precisely the same amount of value as had been consumed by the workmen, can it be said that the work ceases to be productive simply because it is consumed by the workmen themselves? If that were so, agriculture even, would, in most countries with a low civilization, be unproductive.[315]

Commerce, according to the theory of the Physiocrates, only transfers already existing wealth from one hand to another. What the merchants gain by it is at the cost of the nation. Hence, it is desirable that this loss should be as [pg 172] small as possible. Hence sterility![316] But, the more important branches of business, especially wholesale trade, are connected with a transportation of goods (Verri), either from one place or from one period of time, into another. Here the genuine merchant speculates essentially on the difference of the values in use which are afterwards greater than before.[317] The ice shipped yearly from Boston to tropical lands met a much more urgent and wide-spread want there than it would if it had remained at home. And thus the storage of grain in large quantities after a bountiful harvest withdraws, indeed, an object of enjoyment from the consumption of the people; but its sale, after a bad harvest, undoubtedly increases their enjoyment in a much greater degree than it was before diminished. Besides, the condition of both parties to the contract is usually improved in all normal trade. (Condillac.)[318] No one parts with exchangeable goods unless they are of less use to him than the ones he receives in return.[319] And so, the value in use of a nation's resources is really increased by commerce. To the other attributes of goods it adds one of the principal conditions of all use, accessibility (Kudler), with which it either newly endows them, or which it increases in degree. To this end, the merchant makes use of tools, just as the manufacturer [pg 173] does. What spinning-wheels, looms and workshops are to the latter, ships, warehouses, cranes etc., are to the former. If production be not complete until the thing produced is made fit for its last end, consumption, commerce may be looked upon as the last link in the chain of productive labor. It, at the same time, constitutes a series of intermediate links; as without it no division of labor is possible, and without a division of labor, no higher economic productiveness.[320] How commerce may increase the value in exchange of goods, and without in any way injuring the purchaser, needs no further illustration.[321]

Section L.

The Same Subject Continued.

Even Adam Smith called services, in the narrower sense of the term (§ [3]), the grave and important ones of the statesman, clergyman and physician, as well as the “frivolous” ones of the opera singer, ballet-dancer and buffoon, unproductive. The labor of none of these can be fixed or incorporated in any [pg 174] particular object.[322][323] But how strange it is that the labor of a violin-maker is called productive, while that of the violin-player is called unproductive; although the product of the former has no other object than to be played on by the latter? (Garnier.) Is it not strange that the hog-raiser should be called productive, and the educator of man unproductive (List); the apothecary, who prepares a salve which alleviates for the moment, productive, the physician, unproductive, spite of the fact that his prescription in relation to diet, or his surgical operation, may radically cure the severest disease?

If the productiveness of an employment of the factors of production be made to depend on whether it is attended by a material result, no one will deny that the labor of the plowman, for instance, is productive; and no one, of Adam Smith's school, at least, that that of the clerk, who orders the raw material for the owner of the manufactory, is. They have participated indirectly in the production. But, has not the servant of the state, who protects the property of its citizens, or the physician, who preserves the health of the producer, an equally mediate but indispensable share in it? The field-guard who keeps the crows away, every one calls productive; why, not, then, the soldier, who keeps away a far worse [pg 175] enemy from the whole land? (McCulloch.) But the entire division of business into two branches, the one directly, and the other indirectly productive, can be defended only as respects certain kinds of goods. (Schmitthenner.) The labor of the judge, for instance, is only indirectly productive in the manufacture of shoes, inasmuch as he guarantees the payment of the shoemaker's account. On the other hand, the shoemaker contributes only very indirectly to the general security which the law affords, by protecting the judge's foot.[324]

Nor can any effectual inferiority of service be claimed, simply because the productive power of one branch of business is, measured by the duration of its results, greater than another.[325] What is more perishable than a loaf of bread bought for dinner? What more imperishable than the monumentum ære perennius of a Horace? The labor expended on persons and on relations (Verhältnissen) is, both as to the extent [pg 176] and duration of its results, much less capable of being estimated than any other; but its capacity of accumulation and its power of propagation are greater than any other. It is in the domain of the “immaterial,” that man is most “creative.” (Lueder.)[326] Finally, neither should the greater indispensableness of the more material branches of business be too generally asserted. Agriculture produces grain which is indispensable, and tobacco which is not; industry, cloth, as well as lace; commerce draws from the same part of the world rhubarb and edible bird's-nests; and so, to services belong the indispensable ones of the educator and judge, as well as those of the rope-dancer and bear-leader, which can be dispensed with.[327] Indeed, the dividing line between material and intellectual production cannot, by any means, be closely drawn.[328]