Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there. Whenever there are " externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.) But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations). Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place. [42] Secondly, every individual who employs his capital in the support of domestic industry, necessarily endeavours so to direct that industry, that its produce may be of the greatest possible value. The produce of industry is what it adds to the subject or materials upon which it is employed. In proportion as the value of this produce is great or small, so will likewise be the profits of the employer. But it is only for the sake of profit that any man employs a capital in the support of industry; and he will always, therefore, endeavour to employ it in the support of that industry of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, or to exchange for the greatest quantity either of money or of other goods. [20] Lord Shaftesbury turned the convergence of public and private good around, claiming that acting in accordance with one's self-interest produces socially beneficial results. An underlying unifying force that Shaftesbury called the "Will of Nature" maintains equilibrium, congruency, and harmony. This force, to operate freely, requires the individual pursuit of rational self-interest, and the preservation and advancement of the self.

The concept of the "invisible hand" is nearly always generalized beyond Smith's original uses. The phrase was not popular among economists before the twentieth century; Alfred Marshall never used it in his Principles of Economics [27] textbook and neither does William Stanley Jevons in his Theory of Political Economy. [28] Paul Samuelson cites it in his Economics textbook in 1948: It is also relevant to mention that, although the term “invisible hand” only appears explicitly here, this fundamental idea is present throughout The Wealth of Nations and the case treated in this chapter seems to be a particular example of this principle, rather than the principle itself, as noted by Smith ''is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention" The book details what the authors describe as "the nature and extent of the Chinese Communist Party’s influence operations across the Western world – in politics, business, universities, think tanks and international institutions such as the UN. This new authoritarian power is using democracy to undermine democracy in pursuit of its global ambitions ". [3] Nuttall, Jeremy (18 June 2020). "Legal troubles threaten to derail Canadian launch of book about Beijing's influence operations". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 30 June 2020 . Retrieved 27 September 2020.This book is an expression of love… Sublimely conceived and beautifully written’ Gerard DeGroot, The Times Invisible Hand: How Is the Chinese Communist Party Reshaping the World? (見えない手 中国共産党は世界をどう作り変えるか)". Asuka Shinsha Publishing (in Japanese). December 2020 . Retrieved 26 December 2020. Essentially, the invisible hand refers to the unintended positive consequences self-interest has on the promotion of public welfare. [22] [2]

Some economists question the integrity of how the term "invisible hand" is currently used. Gavin Kennedy, Professor Emeritus at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland, argues that its current use in modern economic thinking as a symbol of free market capitalism is not reconcilable with the rather modest and indeterminate manner in which it was employed by Smith. [33] In response to Kennedy, Daniel Klein argues that reconciliation is legitimate. Moreover, even if Smith did not intend the term "invisible hand" to be used in the current manner, its serviceability as such should not be rendered ineffective. [34] In conclusion of their exchange, Kennedy insists that Smith's intentions are of utmost importance to the current debate, which is one of Smith's association with the term "invisible hand". If the term is to be used as a symbol of liberty and economic coordination as it has been in the modern era, Kennedy argues that it should exist as a construct completely separate from Adam Smith since there is little evidence that Smith imputed any significance onto the term, much less the meanings given it at present. [35] Some see an early reference to the concept of the invisible hand in 7th century Arabia where the Islamic prophet Muhammad, when asked by a merchant to fix prices of goods whose prices have shot up, Muhammad responds "It is but Allah [God] Who makes the prices low and high.", in other Hadith it is worded "Allah [God] is the one Who fixes prices". [12] [13] This has been interpreted and applied as the first application of a laissez faire free market where not even Muhammad can interfere in the free market. [14] Anders Chydenius [ edit ] a b Holmberg, Tom. "Why is Napoleon depicted with his hand in his coat?". The Napoleon Series. Archived from the original on 2021-04-16 . Retrieved 2008-08-26.Every individual is continually exerting himself to find out the most advantageous employment for whatever capital he can command. It is his own advantage, indeed, and not that of the society, which he has in view. But the study of his own advantage naturally, or rather necessarily leads him to prefer that employment which is most advantageous to the society. [15] Far from extolling the virtues of the "invisible hand" the overall tone of this passage is one that questions the distribution of wealth and laments the fact that the poor receive the "necessities of life" after the rich have gratified "their own vain and insatiable desires". Although elsewhere in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith has described the desire of men to be respected by the members of the community in which they live, and the desire of men to feel that they are honorable beings. This, he argues, is because the further the capital goes, the greater risk and transaction costs are. [17] He does not exclude the possibility of special situations where capital is sent to "more distant employments". [18]

Smith uses the metaphor in the context of an argument against protectionism and government regulation of markets, but it is based on very broad principles developed by Bernard Mandeville, Bishop Butler, Lord Shaftesbury, and Francis Hutcheson. In general, the term "invisible hand" can apply to any individual action that has unplanned, unintended consequences, particularly those that arise from actions not orchestrated by a central command, and that have an observable, patterned effect on the community. The Japanese translation was published by Asuka Shinsha Publishing as Invisible Hand: How Is the Chinese Communist Party Reshaping the World? (見えない手 中国共産党は世界をどう作り変えるか; ISBN 9784864108010) on December 25, 2020. [5] Censorship attempts [ edit ] Smith's theoretical U-turn from a micro-economical to a macro-economical view is not reflected in The Wealth of Nations. Large parts of this book are retaken from Smith's lectures before his visit to France. So one must distinguish in The Wealth of Nations a micro-economical and a macro-economical Adam Smith. Whether Smith's quotation of an invisible hand in the middle of his work is a micro-economical statement or a macro-economical statement condemning monopolies and government interferences as in the case of tariffs and patents is debatable. The domestic servant ... is not employed as a means to his master's profit. His master's income is not due in any part to his employment; on the contrary, that income is first acquired ... and in the amount of the income is determined whether the servant shall be employed or not, while to the full extent of that employment the income is diminished. As Adam Smith expresses it "a man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants." [26]Naturally, again, such an attitude precluded a critical examination of institutions, and left as the sphere of Christian charity only those parts of life that could be reserved for philanthropy, precisely because they fell outside that larger area of normal human relations, in which the promptings of self-interest provided an all-sufficient motive and rule of conduct. ( Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, pp. 191–192.) Criticisms [ edit ] Joseph E. Stiglitz [ edit ] Harvard economist Stephen Marglin argues that while the "invisible hand" is the "most enduring phrase in Smith's entire work", it is "also the most misunderstood." What is the species of domestic industry which his capital can employ, and of which the produce is likely to be of the greatest value, every individual, it is evident, can, in his local situation, judge much better than any statesman or lawgiver can do for him. The statesman, who should attempt to direct private people in what manner they ought to employ their capitals, would not only load himself with a most unnecessary attention, but assume an authority which could safely be trusted, not only to no single person, but to no council or senate whatever, and which would nowhere be so dangerous as in the hands of a man who had folly and presumption enough to fancy himself fit to exercise it. [23] Other uses of the phrase by Smith [ edit ]