Arnold Toynbee

:This page is about the economic historian Arnold Toynbee; for the universal historian Arnold Joseph Toynbee see this article. For further Toynbees and related topics see the disambiguation page Toynbee.

Lectures on the Industrial Revolution in England

A collection of Toynbee's lectures was published posthumously in 1884 and soon became a classic of British economic history. In them, Toynbee reconstructs the theories of Adam Smith, Thomas Malthus, and David Ricardo in their respective historic contexts and vice versa. He generally argued for a stronger historical orientation in the interpretation of economic developments, and criticised economics as too abstract and deductive. For example, the reason "why one-half of the land in the United Kingdom is owned by 2512 persons" could only be understood in a historical perspective.

Related Topics:
1884 - Economic history - Adam Smith - Thomas Malthus - David Ricardo

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

At the same time, Toynbee warned not to dismiss deductive economics altogether in favour of the historical approach; rather, deductive theory and historical empiricism needed to influence each other, as economic knowledge also enables a deeper understanding of historical developments. Toynbee criticised "party historians" because "they seek to read into the past the controversies of the present". Instead, according to Toynbee, one "must pursue facts for their own sake, but penetrated with a vivid sense of the problems of your own time".

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, according to Toynbee, applying the historical method in economics would reveal how supposedly universal economic laws were in fact relative. For example, he argued that, in spite of commonly held beliefs, free trade was not generally advantageous in itself, but only under certain circumstances which should not be considered absolute. Toynbee considered few laws as universally true, such as the law of diminishing returns. Therefore, there were no universal rules as to how strongly the state should interfere into the market, either; depending on the situation, different degrees of regulation could be appropriate.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Another idea Toynbee dismissed was to consider free competition as universally beneficial to economic and societal progress, especially as reflected in its apotheosis in Social Darwinism, which promotes laissez-faire capitalism. Toynbee suggests to distinguish between "a struggle for mere existence and a struggle for a particular kind of existence." From the very beginning of history, he argues, all human civilization was essentially designed to "interfere with this brute struggle. We intend to modify the violence of the fight, and to prevent the weak being trampled under foot." Although economic competition does have its advantages, being the driving force behind technical progress, these were "gained at the expense of an enormous waste of human life and labour, which might be avoided by regulation." Toynbee suggests to differentiate between competition in production on the one hand, and competition in the distribution of goods on the other hand: " the struggle of men to outvie one another in production is beneficial to the community; their struggle over the division of the joint produce is not. The stronger side will dictate its own terms; and as a matter of fact, in the early days of competition the capitalists used all their power to oppress the labourers, and drove down wages to starvation point. This kind of competition has to be checked; there is no historical instance of its having lasted long without being modified either by combination or legislation, or both. In England both remedies are in operation, the former through Trades Unions, the latter through factory legislation." In itself, a market based on competition was neither good nor bad, but like "a stream whose strength and direction have to be observed, that embankments may be thrown up within which it may do its work harmlessly and beneficially". However, in the early phase of industrial capitalism "it came to be believed in as a gospel, from which it was regarded as little short of immoral to depart".

Related Topics:
Social Darwinism - Laissez-faire capitalism

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~