Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 February 2020
There are three different interpretations of Adam Smith’s trade theory in modern literature: first, the neoclassical theory of absolute advantage; second, an interpretation based on increasing returns; third, an interpretation of uneven development. These interpretations come to widely different conclusions, especially considering the development of the pattern of trade in Smith’s theory. I discuss how these three interpretations emerged. They do not stem from a more detailed analysis of Smith’s works itself but reflect changes within international trade theory. They all result from the fact that economists have imposed nineteenth- and twentieth-century modes of thoughts on Smith’s theory, forcing his writings into later-developed theoretical frameworks. In contrast to classical economists in the nineteenth century, these subsequent interpretations misrepresent Smith’s trade theory in order to portray him as a forerunner of later theories. The differing interpretations can thus be explained only against the backdrop of the development of international trade theory.
Department for Economic and Social Services, University of Potsdam, Germany; email: rschumac@uni-potsdam.de. I would like to thank Maria Pia Paganelli, Craufurd Goodwin, Anja Mücke, the participants of the CHOPE Seminar at Duke University in November 2014, two anonymous referees, as well as Stephen Meardon and Jimena Hurtado as editors of this journal, whose comments were very helpful while writing this article.