Editing Thomas Robert Malthus (section)

== Malthus–Ricardo debate on political economy ==
During the 1820s, a setpiece intellectual discussion took place among the exponents of [[political economy]], often called the Malthus–Ricardo debate after its leading figures, Malthus and theorist of [[free trade]] [[David Ricardo]], both of whom had written books with the title ''Principles of Political Economy''. Under examination were the nature and methods of political economy itself, while it was simultaneously under attack from others.<ref>{{cite book|first=Mary|last=Poovey|author-link=Mary Poovey|title=A History of the Modern Fact: Problems of Knowledge in the Sciences of Wealth and Society|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=Cf7ProAtFBkC&pg=PA295|date=1998|publisher=[[University of Chicago Press]]|location=Chicago, Illinois|isbn=978-0-226-67525-1|page=295}}</ref> The roots of the debate were in the previous decade. In ''The Nature of Rent'' (1815), Malthus had dealt with [[economic rent]], a major concept in classical economics. Ricardo defined a theory of rent in his ''Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'' (1817): he regarded rent as value in excess of real production—something caused by ownership rather than by free trade. Rent therefore represented a kind of negative money that landlords could pull out of the production of the land, by means of its scarcity.<ref>''On The Principles of Political Economy and Taxation'', London: John Murray, Albemarle-Street, by David Ricardo, 1817 (third edition 1821)&nbsp;– Chapter 6, On Profits: paragraph 28, "Thus, taking the former ..." and paragraph 33, "There can, however ..."</ref> Contrary to this concept, Malthus proposed rent to be a kind of [[economic surplus]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.d.umn.edu/cla/faculty/jhamlin/4111/Malthus/Thomas%20Robert%20Malthus.htm|title=Thomas Robert Malthus|website=www.d.umn.edu|access-date=2019-11-19}}</ref>

The debate developed over the economic concept of a [[general glut]], and the possibility of failure of [[Say's law]]. Malthus laid importance on [[economic development]] and the persistence of [[disequilibrium (economics)|disequilibrium]].<ref name="S193">Sowell, pp. 193–4.</ref> The context was the [[Post-Napoleonic depression|post-war depression]]; Malthus had a supporter in [[William Blake (economist)|William Blake]], in denying that [[capital accumulation]] (saving) was always good in such circumstances, and [[John Stuart Mill]] attacked Blake on the fringes of the debate.<ref>{{cite book|first=Donald|last=Winch|author-link=Donald Winch|title=Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834|url=https://archive.org/details/richespovertyint0000winc|url-access=registration|access-date=14 June 2013|date=26 January 1996|publisher=[[Cambridge University Press]]|location=Cambridge, England|isbn=978-0-521-55920-1|page=[https://archive.org/details/richespovertyint0000winc/page/365 365]}}</ref>

Ricardo corresponded with Malthus from 1817 about his ''Principles''. He was drawn into considering political economy in a less restricted sense, which might be adapted to legislation and its multiple objectives, by the thought of Malthus. In ''Principles of Political Economy'' (1820) and elsewhere, Malthus addressed the tension, amounting to conflict he saw between a narrow view of political economy and the broader moral and political plane.<ref name="ColliniWinch1983">{{cite book|author1=Stefan Collini|author2-link=Donald Winch|author2=Donald Winch|author3-link=John Wyon Burrow|author3=John Wyon Burrow|title=That Noble Science of Politics: A Study in Nineteenth Century Intellectual History|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=E688AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA65|date=1983|publisher=CUP Archive|isbn=978-0-521-27770-9|page=65|author1-link=Stefan Collini}}</ref> [[Leslie Stephen]] wrote:

<blockquote>If Malthus and Ricardo differed, it was a difference of men who accepted the same first principles. They both professed to interpret [[Adam Smith]] as the true prophet, and represented different shades of opinion rather than diverging sects.<ref name="Stephen2006">{{cite book|author=Leslie Stephen|title=The English Utilitarians|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=-QKLMdbt5JIC&pg=PA238|date=2006|publisher=Continuum International Publishing Group|isbn=978-0-8264-8816-9|page=238|volume=1|author-link=Leslie Stephen}}</ref></blockquote>

It is now considered that the different purposes seen by Malthus and Ricardo for political economy affected their technical discussion, and contributed to the lack of compatible definitions.<ref name="S193"/> For example, [[Jean-Baptiste Say]] used a definition of production based on [[goods and services]] and so queried the restriction of Malthus to "goods" alone.<ref>{{cite book|author=Samuel Hollander|title=Jean-Baptiste Say and the Classical Canon in Economics: The British Connection in French Classicism|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=IZdF-SECz9cC&pg=PA170|date=2005|publisher=Taylor & Francis|isbn=978-0-203-02228-3|page=170}}</ref>

In terms of public policy, Malthus was a supporter of the [[economic protectionism|protectionist]] [[Corn Laws]] from the end of the [[Napoleonic Wars]]. He emerged as the only economist of note to support duties on imported grain.<ref>Geoffrey Gilbert, introduction to Malthus T.R. 1798. ''An Essay on the Principle of Population''. Oxford World's Classics reprint. xx in Oxford World's Classics series. xx</ref> By encouraging domestic production, Malthus argued, the Corn Laws would guarantee British [[self-sufficiency]] in food.<ref>Cannan E. 1893. ''A History of the Theories of Production and Distribution in English Political Economy from 1776 to 1848''. Kelly, New York.</ref>