Defining French classical political economy
It is usually asserted that French classical political economy vaguely refers to liberal authors who wrote during the first three-quarters of the nineteenth century. This tradition will be followed here with some reluctance, because it should be remembered that these economists have never properly been a school: their opinions were diverse and many of them criticized the ideas put forward by the English classical economists - especially those of David Ricardo (see, for example, Beraud and Faccarello 2014; see also Gehrke and Kurz 2001).
The vague link that connects them is that they all start from the works of Jean-Baptiste Say. They are not necessarily Say’s disciples in the strict sense of the word: they differ from his views on important points, but they are influenced by him. They are liberals because they insist, with him, that the interests of men and nations do not conflict with each other. They therefore condemn any kind of protection or state intervention which would, they say, disrupt the competitive market mechanism. However, gradually, the memories of Say faded and towards the end of the nineteenth century French liberal economists became critical of the ideas defended by their predecessors. The liberal tradition continues but economists such as Paul Leroy-Beaulieu or Clement Colson can hardly be considered “classical” in the sense entertained here.In 1803, Jean-Baptiste Say (1767-1832) and Jean-Charles Leonard Simonde de Sismondi (1773-1842) published respectively the Traite d’economie politique and De la richesse commerciale: both books are at the origin of the development of classical political economy in France. In this first generation also, Antoine Destutt de Tracy (17541836) - the leader of the ideologues - deserves to be mentioned. His writings pertain to philosophy, economics and political science, and were highly influential in France and abroad.
In the second generation are Charles Comte (1782-1837) - Say’s son in law - and Charles Dunoyer (1786-1862), both disciples of Say, on the one hand, and Pellegrino Rossi (1787-1848), who was more influenced by Ricardo, on the other.
During the 1840s, the main topics under discussion changed. Jules Dupuit (1804-1866), Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) and Michel Chevalier (1806-1879) - a former Saint-Simonian - were all in favour of free trade, but their approaches differed in important respects. While Dupuit is well known for his analysis of utility, Bastiat had to break with the classical analysis of the distribution of income - whether Ricardo’s or Say’s - in order to state that the interests of the different social classes are “harmonious” (“harmoniques”). Chevalier and Charles Coquelin (1802-1852) are especially known for their writings on money and their defence of the freedom of issuance, thus opposing Louis Wolowski (1810-1876) who was in favour of the monopoly of issue by the Banque de France.Joseph Garnier (1813-1881) and Jean-Gustave Courcelle-Seneuil (1813-1892) published successful textbooks. Gustave de Molinari (1819-1912), a long-time editor of the Journal des economistes, was a fierce advocate of an uncompromising liberalism and is considered today one of the first libertarians. French classical economists, in particular Say and Sismondi, had tried to explain economic crises. Clement Juglar (1819-1905) proposed a different approach to the problem with his theory of business cycles. To
conclude this brief review of the “troops”, the influence of two prominent political philosophers - Benjamin Constant (1767-1830) and Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859) - on French liberal economists must be stressed.