You are not currently logged in.
Access JSTOR through your library or other institution:
Reconstructing Mercantilism: Consensus and Conflict in British Imperial Economy in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries
The William and Mary Quarterly
Vol. 73, No. 2 (April 2016), pp. 257-290
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5309/willmaryquar.73.2.0257
Page Count: 34
You can always find the topics here!Topics: Mercantilism, Balance of trade, Free trade, Political economy, International trade, Trade deficits, Monopoly, Silver, Countries, Merchants
Were these topics helpful?See somethings inaccurate? Let us know!
Select the topics that are inaccurate.
Preview not available
Mercantilism is a term that has withstood enormous scrutiny from historians since the middle of the twentieth century. The fact that economic thinkers in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries so ardently disagreed on a wide range of policy proposals has led many historians to question whether we can truly speak of a coherent mercantilist ideology. This historiographical turn, though usefully reminding historians of the diversity of economic thought, has regrettably obscured the distinctive elements that united most early modern economic thinkers. Mercantilist diversity was grounded on a common consensus that assigned a particular importance to the quantity of money. This specie objective contributed in turn to a mercantilist fixation on the balance of trade, provoking fervent debate over the most effective means to ensure a general trade surplus. Mercantilism crumbled only after a new generation of economic writers in the latter half of the eighteenth century insisted that the quantity of money bore no relation to power and plenty. Until then, the cardinal philosophy of empire was mercantilism, a diverse system of thought founded upon a meaningful consensus about money and trade.
© 2016 Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture