Hayek on Johnson’s Predecessors of Adam Smith (1937)

Friedrich August von Hayek’s review of E. A. J. Johnson’s Predecessors of Adam Smith: The Growth of British Economic Thought distinguishes the history of influential economic-policy arguments from the history of economics as a systematic science. His central objection concerns the book’s criterion of selection: writers who discussed economic problems before Smith were not necessarily significant intellectual predecessors.

If the significance of their contributions to economic thought had been made the criterion of selection, surely a different list of names should have resulted.

Hayek connects this selection to Johnson’s limited sympathy for the “skeletal logic” of modern economics. Johnson concentrates instead on mercantilist policy proposals, especially schemes for increasing productivity. Alongside Mun, Petty, and Hume, he includes Nehemia Grew, whom Hayek treats as a precursor of scientific planning rather than a substantial economist, and Charles King, whose influence Hayek attributes chiefly to successful propaganda. The distinction is between public influence and analytical contribution. Hayek nevertheless acknowledges the collection’s value as evidence of arguments that commanded contemporary attention.

The review then turns from selection to scholarly execution, where its judgment is more favorable:

The discussion of the work of the different writers is careful and scholarly and brings much useful information together.

Hayek particularly welcomes Johnson’s work on the extensive publications of M. Postlethwayt. This praise separates the usefulness of historical research from agreement with its interpretive judgments. He suspects that Johnson’s sympathy for the mercantilists has made his treatment of Hume unfair, though the brief review does not develop that criticism through detailed examples.

The closing paragraph addresses presentation. Hayek attributes excessive repetition to the insufficient revision of material originally published as separate articles. His objection to endnotes likewise concerns their effect on the reader’s access to the argument:

This may be unobjectionable if the notes only give the exact reference for material used in the text.

The difficulty arises when routine page references are interspersed with quotations necessary to appreciate the argument, forcing repeated consultation of the appendix. Moving from intellectual scope through scholarly achievement to editorial form, the review offers a qualified endorsement: Johnson assembles valuable historical material, but his account of policy discussion does not consistently establish the analytical lineage promised by the designation “predecessors of Adam Smith.”