A New Interpretation of Smith: Mathematical Economics Appear on the Scene

If the debate between physiocratic and Smithian ideas—reinterpreted by Garnier—had a strong influence in Spain, a different channel appeared, which enhanced the contro­versy between the defenders of the agrarian reform movement that vindicated Smith’s work and tried to reconcile them with those of the French economists, andthose who supported a more industrialist approach.

The existence of this text shows how the mathematical economics of Canard also had its defenders in Spain. The weight of Smith’s work continued to be present, but now the direction approached not the reinterpretation of Garnier nor that of Say, which began with his Traite d'economie politique, but relied more on the principles of Canard’s (1804) recently translated work, which followed along very different lines: mathematical economics.

Lopez de Penalver published in October of 1801, in the Mercurio de Espana—without explicitly stating the authorship of the articles—two contributions on Canard’s recently published work, his Principes d'economiepolitique, which he considered the most advanced work on economic contributions of the epoch: “Because his method is analytic, clear, exact and is always guided by the spirit of observation and calculation. Without approv­ing all of the principles which the author expresses, nor admitting all of the consequences which are deduced, we can say that his work brings the science of political economy to a point of perfection, which it had never reached before” (1801, 188).

The review of Canard’s work helped him criticize the tax theories of the physiocrats: “There is no reason for saying that the tax falls entirely on the product of the land,” and he quotes Canard’s arguments, by stating, “Due to another very unique consequence, the author feels that every old tax is good and that every new tax is bad,” for Lopez de Penalver thought that the new tax figures could disrupt the general eco­nomic equilibrium (Lluch, 1992, lxxviii).

From this perspective, Lopez de Penalver was not a follower of Say, to whom he devoted two long articles afterward in the same newspaper of which he was the director, El Mercurio de Espana, (March 15 and 31, 1804) on the occasion of the publication of Say’s Traite. In view of Say’s criterion that before Smith there was no idea of political economy, he vindicated Steuart and Condillac’s works, although it is true that he considered that the first one was filled with an infinite number of errors and that Condillac’s—despite Say’s opinion—contained very few The review of the Traite in reality served to vindicate Condillac’s work and even more clearly Smith’s, to which Lopez de Penalver was more closely related (Lopez de Penalver, 1804).

Furthermore, he used the critical commentary on Say’s work to vindicate a more systematic analysis of economic science, and he drew from the French author the idea that the teaching of economics should not be limited to the higher classes, for it was the middle classes that served as the conveyor belt for this knowledge. More importantly still was rescuing from Say’s work its new concept of the economy of “independence which is acquired with the industrial products” (Steiner, 1993).

As regards Smith’s work, Lopez de Penalver also criticized some of its interpreters, like Garnier, who called the work of the Scottish economist dark and difficult to read: “It is true that Smith is dark and obscure in some passages, but if we ignore for the moment the confusion its translators may have created, we should say that there were very few” (1804, 373).

He was more concerned about the debate on the different methods (the analytical and the synthetic) used by both authors. Through his analysis, he tried to eliminate the criticisms of Smith for selecting the first of them, with which he defined his own methodological position: “Only in the form and general distribution of the matters can we note Say’s preference for the synthetic method.

Aside from Lopez de Penalver’s notations and leaving a record of the rapid trans­lation of the Traite, Jose Queipo’s translation of Say’s work was very well received and it heightened the controversy about what should be the preferred text for teach­ing economics. A few years had passed since Genovesi’s Lecciones, the texts inspired by Cantillon, or those of cameralist influence, like Bielfeld’s Institucionespoliticas, which were used for this purpose. Now, from official levels—as proof of the adoption of the Traite in its Spanish version as an official textbook as of 1807—this last work was chosen as preferential.

The reason for the translation was stated by the translator himself in his introduction to Say’s work, in which he reflects on the status of the matter regarding the controversial selection of texts: “Persuaded [...] that it is a work that is absolutely lacking; for nei­ther Garnier’s Elementary Compendium published in 1796, nor Canard’s Economic Principles, made public in 1801, can make up for it in any way. These two works do have their merit, especially the second one, whose translation we proposed before we received the present one by Say” (Say, 1804, xiii-xiv).¹⁹

7.