Progress: Poverty or Prosperity? Joining the Debate between George and Marshall on the Effects of Economic Growth on the Distribution of Income. (History of Thought)

By Aslanbeigui, Nahid; Wigk, Adele | The American Journal of Economics and Sociology, December 2001 | Go to article overview
Save to active project

Progress: Poverty or Prosperity? Joining the Debate between George and Marshall on the Effects of Economic Growth on the Distribution of Income. (History of Thought)


Aslanbeigui, Nahid, Wigk, Adele, The American Journal of Economics and Sociology


NAHID ASLANBEIGUI (*)

ADELE WIGK (**)

Two Late-19th-Century Authors

HENRY GEORGE AND Alfred Marshall were among the most influential authors of the late 19th century. George's best-selling Progress and Poverty fueled many policy debates of the time; and Marshall's Principles of Economics, the standard textbook for decades, laid the foundation for modern economics. Each recognized the other's influence. In 1883, at the height of George's fame in the British Isles, Marshall acknowledged George's "singular and almost unexampled power of catching the ear of the people" (Marshall and George [1884] 1969:221); and over a decade later, when Marshall's Principles had begun to establish its academic preeminence, George described this text as "the latest and largest, and scholastically the most highly indorsed, economic work yet published in English" (George SPE:125).

Not only were George and Marshall important figures in intellectual history, but they had an important common ground in their deep concern with poverty. Both considered poverty mentally and morally debasing in large part because of its general association with relentlessly hard manual labor. The commonality of their views is best seen by simple juxtaposition. Said George:

The poverty to which in advancing civilization great masses of men are condemned ... is a degrading and embruting slavery, that cramps the higher nature, dulls the finer feelings, and drives men by its pain to acts which the brutes would refuse (George P&P:356-357).

In a similar vein, Marshall stated:

We scarcely realize how subtle, all pervading and powerful may be the effect of the work of man's body in dwarfing the growth of the man....[T]he poor labourer may live and die without even realizing what a joy there is in knowledge, or what delight in art; he may never have conceived how glorious a thing it is to be able to think and to feel about things and with many men (Marshall, in Pigou 1925:105-06).

Indeed, the "destruction of the poor is their poverty" and the study of the causes of poverty is the study of "the causes of the degradation of a large part of mankind" (Marshall 1920:3).

George and Marshall also shared the optimistic belief that "progress" could eliminate poverty from society. Neither carefully--nor casually, for that matter--defined this term,(1) but it is tellingly equivalent to growth in national income in George's work. Marshall therefore uses the same terminology in his three lectures on George's issues, and we employ it here instead of the modern term because of the importance of the historical coupling of "progress" and "poverty."

Unlike some modern critics of economic growth who emphasize the concomitants of debasing materialism, degradation of the environment, dehumanization of the masses by technology, and destruction of important elements in the "quality" of life, both George and Marshall were keen advocates of economic progress and regarded it as necessary but not sufficient for the good life. For George, as we shall see, sufficiency conditions involved redistributing land rents, while Marshall required educating the population and inculcating habits of thrift and restraint in breeding. Without such public distribution of rents, George owned that industrialization worsened the plight of the poor because of the deleterious effects of the division of labor on the laborers' independence and well-roundedness. Marshall deplored the unhealthy living conditions of the urban poor as a temporary cost of growth before the effects of his training programs became apparent.

However, George and Marshall both asserted that because poverty is the major source of moral degradation, a society rich enough to eliminate material poverty could achieve in spiritual wealth as well. In such a society, wages for crude labor would become so high that the hours anyone expended in such work would be minimal.

The rest of this article is only available to active members of Questia

Sign up now for a free, 1-day trial and receive full access to:

  • Questia's entire collection
  • Automatic bibliography creation
  • More helpful research tools like notes, citations, and highlights
  • Ad-free environment

Already a member? Log in now.

Notes for this article

Add a new note
If you are trying to select text to create highlights or citations, remember that you must now click or tap on the first word, and then click or tap on the last word.
One moment ...
Project items

Items saved from this article

This article has been saved
Highlights (0)
Some of your highlights are legacy items.

Highlights saved before July 30, 2012 will not be displayed on their respective source pages.

You can easily re-create the highlights by opening the book page or article, selecting the text, and clicking “Highlight.”

Citations (0)
Some of your citations are legacy items.

Any citation created before July 30, 2012 will labeled as a “Cited page.” New citations will be saved as cited passages, pages or articles.

We also added the ability to view new citations from your projects or the book or article where you created them.

Notes (0)
Bookmarks (0)

You have no saved items from this article

Project items include:
  • Saved book/article
  • Highlights
  • Quotes/citations
  • Notes
  • Bookmarks
Notes
Cite this article

Cited article

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

(Einhorn, 1992, p. 25)

(Einhorn 25)

1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited article

Progress: Poverty or Prosperity? Joining the Debate between George and Marshall on the Effects of Economic Growth on the Distribution of Income. (History of Thought)
Settings

Settings

Typeface
Text size Smaller Larger
Search within

Search within this article

Look up

Look up a word

  • Dictionary
  • Thesaurus
Please submit a word or phrase above.
Print this page

Print this page

Why can't I print more than one page at a time?

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution. We are sorry for any inconvenience.
Full screen

matching results for page

Cited passage

Style
Citations are available only to our active members.
Sign up now to cite pages or passages in MLA, APA and Chicago citation styles.

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn, 1992, p. 25).

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences." (Einhorn 25)

"Portraying himself as an honest, ordinary person helped Lincoln identify with his audiences."1

1. Lois J. Einhorn, Abraham Lincoln, the Orator: Penetrating the Lincoln Legend (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1992), 25, http://www.questia.com/read/27419298.

Cited passage

Welcome to the new Questia Reader

The Questia Reader has been updated to provide you with an even better online reading experience.  It is now 100% Responsive, which means you can read our books and articles on any sized device you wish.  All of your favorite tools like notes, highlights, and citations are still here, but the way you select text has been updated to be easier to use, especially on touchscreen devices.  Here's how:

1. Click or tap the first word you want to select.
2. Click or tap the last word you want to select.

OK, got it!

Thanks for trying Questia!

Please continue trying out our research tools, but please note, full functionality is available only to our active members.

Your work will be lost once you leave this Web page.

For full access in an ad-free environment, sign up now for a FREE, 1-day trial.

Already a member? Log in now.