Grand Pursuit: A Story of Economic Genius. Sylvia Nasar
Читать онлайн книгу.
the notion that a mass escape from poverty was ruled out by the biological laws. Poverty that had once appeared to be a natural and near-universal feature of the social landscape began to look more and more like a blemish.
Was there an ingenious mechanism that could lift wages until the average wage sufficed for a middle-class life? Mill acknowledged that the wages fund theory was flawed, but neither he nor his critics could propose a satisfactory alternative. An extraordinary number of Victorian intellectuals—from Charles Dickens, Henry Mayhew, and Karl Marx to John Ruskin and Henry Sidgwick—attempted to fashion one. Since none had so far succeeded, no one could say whether hopes for social betterment really could be reconciled with economic reality, or whether the palpable gains of the 1850s and 1860s were doomed to be reversed. Tories such as Ruskin and Carlyle, an anti-Abolitionist, predicted disaster if the old feudal bonds were not restored. Socialists argued that without sweeping societal changes, the condition of workers was “un-improvable and their wrongs irremediable.”49 The standard-of-living debate, as it became known, boiled down to one question: How much improvement was possible under existing social arrangements?
As he stood before “70 to 80 ladies” in a borrowed Cambridge college lecture hall on a spring evening in 1873, Alfred Marshall’s handsome face was lit with an inner flame, and he spoke with great force and fluency without notes. He addressed the women in plain, direct, homely terms as if he were speaking to his sister, urging them to stop “tatting their tatting and twirling their thumbs” and counseled them to resist the demands of their families. Instead he wanted them to get jobs as social workers and teachers like “Miss Octavia Hill.” Most of all, he insisted that they learn “what difficulties there are to be overcome, and . . . how to overcome them.”50
Like his mentor Henry Sidgwick and other university radicals of the 1860s and 1870s, Marshall came to see education as a weapon in the struggle against social injustice, and like other admirers of Mill’s The Subjection of Women, published in 1869, he considered the educated woman society’s principal change agent. For Marshall, the existential problem for women and for the working classes was essentially the same: both lacked the opportunity to lead independent and fulfilling lives. Workers were condemned by low wages to lives of drudgery that prevented all but the most exceptional from fully developing their moral and creative faculties. Middle-class women were condemned by custom to ignorance and drudgery of a different sort. Inspired by the novels of contemporaries such as George Eliot and Charlotte Brontë, Marshall was particularly sensitive to the plight of women who were prevented from developing their intellects and regretted society’s loss of their talents. He was convinced that the task of liberating the working classes required the energies of middle-class women as well as a more scientific economics. On the topic of “the intimate connection between the free play of the full and strong pulse of women’s thought and the amelioration of the working classes,” Marshall was “a great preacher.” In an age that celebrated “the angel of the hearth,” Marshall taught extension courses for women, acted as an unpaid examiner, and personally financed an essay-writing prize in economics for female students, as well as, later on, contributing a substantial £60 to the construction fund for Newnham Hall, the nucleus of one of Cambridge’s first women’s colleges. In 1873, Marshall joined Sidgwick, other members of the Grote Club, and Millicent Fawcett—whose sister Elizabeth Garrett was attempting to study medicine—to found the General Committee of Management of the Lectures for Women.51
Marshall’s lectures focused on the central paradox of modern society: poverty amid plenty. He taught by posing a series of questions: Why hadn’t the Industrial Revolution freed the working class “from misery and vice?” How much improvement is possible under current social arrangements based on private property and competition? His answers reflected how far he had distanced himself from the specific assumptions and conclusions of his predecessors. He told the women that philanthropy and political economy were not, as Malthus had supposed and latter-day Malthusians continued to believe, irreconcilable.
Even as he contradicted the conclusions of the founders of political economy, Marshall insisted that the science itself was indispensible. The problem of poverty was far more complicated than most reformers admitted. Economic science, like the physical sciences, was nothing more or less than a tool for breaking down complex problems into simpler parts that could be analyzed one at a time. Intervention based on faulty theories of causes could easily make the problem worse. Marshall cited Adam Smith, David Ricardo, Thomas Malthus, and John Stuart Mill to demonstrate the power of the “engine of analysis” they had constructed, as well as to show how it had to be improved. Without such a tool, he told them, discovering truths would always be a matter of accident and the accumulation of knowledge with time wholly impossible.
Marshall agreed with Mill that the industrial revolution hadn’t liberated him from the tyranny of economic necessity or supplied the material requisites for a “higher life.” “Our rapid progress in science and arts of production might have been expected to have prevented to a great extent the sacrifice of the interests of the laborer to the interests of production . . . It has not done so.”52 What he strenuously disputed was the assertion by political economists that it could not do so, that the remuneration of labor as such, skilled or unskilled, could never rise much above its present level.53
He did not doubt that the chief cause of poverty was low wages, but what caused wages to be low? Radicals claimed that it was the rapacity of employers, while Malthusians argued that it was the moral failings of the poor. Marshall proposed a different answer: low productivity. He cited as evidence the fact that, contrary to Marx’s claim that competition would cause the wages of skilled and unskilled workers to converge near subsistence level, skilled workers were earning “two, three, four times” as much as unskilled laborers. The fact that employers were willing to pay more for specialized training or skill implied that wages depended on workers’ contribution to current output. Or, put another way, that the demand for labor, not only the supply, helped to determine pay. If that was the case, the average wage wouldn’t be stationary. As technology, education, and improvements in organization increased productivity over time, the income of the workers would rise in tandem. The fruits of better organization, knowledge, and technology would, over time, eliminate the chief cause of poverty. Activity and initiative, not resignation, were called for.
Arnold Toynbee the historian later described the significance of Marshall’s insight: “Here is the first great hope which the latest analysis of the wages question opens out to the laborer. It shows him that there is another mode of raising his wages besides limiting his numbers.”54 Workers themselves could influence their own and their children’s ability to earn better wages. “The chief remedy, then, for low wages is better education,” Marshall told his audience.
He took great pains to demolish Socialists’ claim that but for oppression by the rich, the poor could live in “absolute luxury.” England’s annual income totaled about £900 million, he told the women. The wages paid to manual workers amounted to a total of £400 million. Most of the remaining £500 million, Marshall pointed out, represented the wages of workers who did not belong to the so-called working classes: semiskilled and skilled workers, government officials and military, professionals, and managers. In fact, an absolutely equal division of Britain’s annual income would provide less than £37 per capita. Reducing poverty required expanding output and increasing efficiency; in other words, economic growth.
The chief error of the older economists, in Marshall’s view, was to not see that man was a creature of circumstances and that as circumstances changed, man was liable to change as well. The chief error of their critics—but, ironically, one that the founders of political economy shared—was a failure to understand the cumulative power of incremental change and the compounding effects of time.
There are I believe in the world few things with greater capability of poetry in it than the multiplication table . . . If you can get mental and moral capital to grow at some rate per annum there is no limit to the advance that may be made; if you can give it the vital force which will make the multiplication table applicable to it, it becomes a little seed that will grow up to a tree of boundless size.55
Ideas mattered when the past was not simply being reproduced but something new was being created. “An