Brian Chi-ang Lin on Mill, impacts of industrial revolution, and distribution of wealth

Brian Chi-ang Lin. Journal of Economic Issues. Lincoln: Sep 2008. Vol. 42, Iss. 3:

To take up the challenges of sustainable development of human societies, it is necessary to achieve a more equitable distribution of wealth. In this regard, John Stuart Mill's concept of the stationary state outlined in his Principles of Political Economy is conceptually in line with the modern exposition of sustainable development (Lin 2006; 2007). O'Connor (1997) also investigated Mill's concepts of a private propertybased liberal society as well as a stationary-state society, and argued that the writings of Mill represent a prototype for ideals of a "sustainable development." Winch (2004, 111) points out that Mill is one of the earliest green thinkers and his "defense of a zero-growth society conveys the substance of his environmentalist concerns." Mill's virtuous stationary-state (zero-growth) society, according to Winch (2004, 122), is "a continuous state of dynamic equilibrium" in which all improvements in new technologies can be redirected toward redistribution of wealth and the promotion of life quality.

 

Although greatly influenced by David Ricardo, Mill's stationary state was not the dismal scenario which Ricardo visualized. Mill took a different view of his desirable society and outlined his desires for a good future. In his chapter on the stationary state, in which he discussed the long-run tendencies of the economy, he said:

 

But the best state for human nature is that in which, while no one is poor, no one desires to be richer, nor has any reason to fear being thrust back by the efforts of others to push themselves forward . . . There would be as much scope as ever for all kinds of mental culture, and moral and social progress; as much room for improving the Art of Living, and much more likelihood of its being improved, when minds ceased to be engrossed by the art of getting on. (Mill 1965, 748-51)

Looking at the economic and social conditions of his time, Mill felt that the masses of society were bypassed by the materialistic development of the Industrial Revolution and wondered whether a country with a growing economy was a desirable living place. He envisioned that the stationary state would result in an improvement in the art of living:

It is only in the backward countries of the world that increased production is still an important object: in those most advanced, what is economically needed is a better distribution ... On the other hand, we may suppose this better distribution of property attained, by the joint effect of the prudence and frugality of individuals, and of a system of legislation favouring equality of fortunes, so far as is consistent with the just claim of the individual to the fruits, whether great or small, of his or her own industry. (Mill 1965, 749)

As this passage suggests, Mill's stationary state might be narrowly interpreted as a society with no (or limited) growth in physical output. Alternatively, it should be best understood as a society with unlimited growth in mental culture and improvements in economic equality (by means of wealth redistribution).  

Posted via email from Jim Nichols