Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty

Summary

Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty is an edited volume published in 1979 by the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, edited by Robert V. Andelson (1931–) of Auburn University. The book was funded by the Schalkenbach Foundation and Basic Economic Education, Inc., of San Diego (Andelson 1979, p. 14). It comprises 27 chapters in five parts by multiple contributors, including Mason Gaffney, and was published to mark the centenary of Progress and Poverty (1879).

Andelson's thesis is that the highest tribute to Henry George's memory is to present his critics' arguments as fairly as possible and weigh them against both abstract reason and empirical evidence (Andelson 1979, p. 3). The book is the first comprehensive effort to review and evaluate the main critiques of George's contribution. Andelson argues that George's "unwarranted suspicion, even contempt, for the academic world" created antagonism among the very people whose endorsement he needed (Andelson 1979, p. 19). The volume covers critics from the 19th century British/continental and American traditions through 20th century figures, concluding with a chapter on "Neo-Georgism."

Core Findings

Structure and Coverage

The book is organized in five parts (per the first edition table of contents; Andelson 1979, pp. 11–12):

• Part I: "The Essential Henry George" by George Babilot, plus an introductory chapter by Andelson and Dr. Louis Wasserman (A-claim; factual)
• Part II: Nineteenth-century British and continental critics: Laveleye, Marshall, Longe and Wrightson, Mallock, Moffat, Cathrein, Huxley, and Rae (A-claim; factual)
• Part III: Nineteenth-century American critics: Dixwell, Walker, Harris, Gronlund and other Marxists, Rutherford, Ingalls/Hanson/Tucker, Atkinson, Clark and Patten, and Seligman (A-claim; factual)
• Part IV: Twentieth-century critics: Davenport, Carver, Ely, Alcazar, Ryan, Rothbard, and Oser, plus a concluding chapter by Andelson on Neo-Georgism (A-claim; factual)

The Conspiracy of Silence

Andelson cites Tolstoy's 1905 assertion that "people do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it" (Andelson 1979, p. 7). He argues this had validity, as economic textbook writers tended to dismiss George's contribution "with a few patronizing sentences" displaying "a lamentable absence of real acquaintance with his thought" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). Schumpeter, however, spoke appreciatively of George in his History of Economic Analysis (Andelson 1979, p. 20). (D-claim; interpretive)

George as Self-Taught Economist

Andelson places George in a "long succession of political economists — including Adam Smith, Malthus, the two Mills, Ricardo, Chalmers, Sidgwick, and Marx — with no official training in the discipline" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). George launched his theory just as economics was becoming a specialized profession, signaled by the founding of the American Economic Association in 1885, which contributed to his marginalization as an "amateur" (Andelson 1979, p. 19). (D-claim; interpretive)

Key Critics Examined

Alfred Marshall is treated as the professional economist who "guarded the purity of his discipline" (Ch. 4). Marshall's critique targeted George's wage theory and the single-tax proposal. Andelson and his contributor analyze Marshall's Early Economic Writings (1867–1890), permission for which was obtained from the Royal Economic Society (Andelson 1979, p. 15). (E-claim; objection)

Francis Walker is described as the general who "led the charge" against George (Ch. 12). Walker's critique was among the most influential American responses to Progress and Poverty. (E-claim; objection)

E.R.A. Seligman is examined for his critique "from social utility" (Ch. 19), adapted from Andelson's own 1968 article in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology (Andelson 1979, p. 15). (E-claim; objection)

Murray Rothbard represents the 20th-century libertarian/Austrian critique (Ch. 25). (E-claim; objection)

The Single Tax Assessment

Schumpeter is cited as assessing that the single tax "is not economically unsound, except that it involves an unwarranted optimism concerning the yield of such a tax" and "should not be put down as nonsense" (Andelson 1979, p. 20). Schumpeter noted George was "a very orthodox economist" who was "thoroughly at home in scientific economics" up to and including Mill's treatise (Andelson 1979, p. 20). (D-claim; interpretive)

Policy Recommendations

Most of the volume is analytical, but Andelson's concluding chapter, "Neo-Georgism" (Ch. 27, the sole chapter of Part V, "Conclusions"), is explicitly prescriptive and advances a specific program that goes beyond a general endorsement of land value taxation. Rather than a strict single tax, the "Neo-Georgist" adopts a graduated order of priorities for public revenue governed by the benefit principle: first, the land-value tax, given "premier place" for its non-shiftability and benign effect on production; second, use taxes or benefit fees, "of which the gasoline tax (assuming its yield is used on highways or related functions) is a salient example"; and only as a last resort, general levies for services that are "truly necessary and truly general (e.g., police and fire protection, national defense, the control of communicable disease)," apportioned by "at least some approach to objectively equal payment—possibly a nongraduated percentage of incomes" (Andelson 1979, p. 388). Neo-Georgism further stands for public appropriation of the full land rent "less a percentage just large enough to induce owners to retain private title," could accede to "temporary and limited compensation" where full appropriation would cause extreme hardship, and proposes a severance tax on exhaustible natural resources "in lieu of at least part of the land-value tax"; a footnoted "libertarian refinement" would distribute the land-rent revenue "on a per capita basis, giving each individual the option of using his share to purchase domestic public services, or of doing without them" (Andelson 1979, pp. 388–389). Andelson expressly distinguishes this stance from both the "single tax limited" of Shearman and the Fabian view of land-value taxation "as merely a highly desirable source to be employed as one tax among many without discrimination as to their ranking" (Andelson 1979, p. 389).

Nuances and Limits

Editorial Perspective

The volume was produced with support from Georgist organizations (Schalkenbach Foundation, BEE), which Andelson acknowledges. While Andelson states the aim of fairness to critics, the project's institutional context is Georgist. Contributors include Mason Gaffney, a prominent Georgist economist (Andelson 1979, p. 14).

Coverage Gaps

Not all significant critics of George are covered. The selection focuses on published academic critics; popular and political critiques receive less attention. Some 20th-century critics (e.g., Stigler, Samuelson) are not examined.

Key Quotes

"People do not argue with the teaching of George, they simply do not know it." — Leo Tolstoy, 1905 (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"He was a self-taught economist, but he was an economist. […] Barring his panacea (the Single Tax) and the phraseology connected with it, he was a very orthodox economist and extremely conservative as to methods." — Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George). In the omitted passage, Schumpeter adds that George acquired most of the knowledge and argumentative ability an academic training of the era would have given him, distinguishing him to his advantage from most proponents of panaceas.

"Even the panacea—nationalization not of land but of the rent of land by a confiscatory tax—benefited by his competence as an economist, for he was careful to frame his 'remedy' in such a manner as to cause the minimum injury to the efficiency of the private-enterprise economy." — Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"Property in land ought not to be as absolute as property in chattels." — Samuel Smith, M.P., The Nationalisation of Land (quoted in Andelson's introduction, Critics of Henry George)

"After twenty pages of highly technical analysis accusing George of inconsistency, special pleading, and inattention to empirical facts, this critic concludes by acknowledging the truth of three of the most salient Georgist principles […]" — Robert V. Andelson, on Edgar H. Johnson's critique, Critics of Henry George, Ch. 1. The three principles Andelson lists: that land is a gift of nature and not a product of human toil; that its value arises from the community's activities, not the owner's; and that a tax upon it is not, generally speaking, a burden on industry.

"It was the role of land in society that constituted the massive preoccupation of Henry George, and the fact that the publication of his major work in 1879 generated sympathetic rumblings throughout much of the world indicated that he had touched upon a fundamental theme of political economy. […]" — George Babilot, 'The Essential Henry George,' Critics of Henry George, Ch. 2. Babilot then calls it strange that land economics, particularly its theoretical side, receives such scant attention at present.

"The land, according to both Genesis and geology, preceded the advent of man into the world, and there is no doubt that landed wealth has enjoyed a more persistent history than any other form. […]" — George Babilot, 'The Essential Henry George,' Critics of Henry George, Ch. 2. Babilot continues that even after a sophisticated economics has recast every kind of wealth as liquid capital, land keeps its unique role — the taken-for-granted foundation of human existence and of all productive activity, which man can modify but not create or destroy except in tiny patches, and whose essential qualities neither boom nor depression alter.

"His is one of the great names among the world's social philosophers. It would require less than the fingers of the two hands to enumerate those who from Plato down rank with him. […]" — John Dewey, 'An Appreciation of Henry George' (quoted in Critics of Henry George, Ch. 1 notes). Dewey adds that no one — no graduate of any higher educational institution — may regard himself as educated in social thought without some first-hand acquaintance with the theoretical contribution of this great American thinker.

Bears On

• Henry George — central subject of the volume
• Progress and Poverty — the work being critiqued
• Single Tax — the primary policy proposal under examination
• Objections to Land Value Tax — the volume surveys major objections
• History of Economic Thought — contextualizes George in the discipline
• Mason Gaffney — contributor to the volume
• Robert Schalkenbach Foundation — publisher and funder

See Also

• Johnson: The Case against the Single Tax (1914) — full text — the era's canonical mainstream-press critique, carried in full
• Henry George
• Progress and Poverty
• Single Tax
• Objections to Land Value Tax
• Mason Gaffney

Sources

1. Robert V. Andelson (ed.), Critics of Henry George: A Centenary Appraisal of Their Strictures on Progress and Poverty (New York: Robert Schalkenbach Foundation, 1979). — used as the primary text for this page's summaries and quotes.
2. Joseph Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, posthumously published — used for the assessment of George as economist, cited in Andelson p. 20 (D-claim; interpretive).
3. Alfred Marshall, The Early Economic Writings of Alfred Marshall, 1867–1890, ed. J. K. Whitaker (Macmillan, 1975) — used as the source for Marshall's critique (Ch. 4) (E-claim; objection).
4. Henry George, Progress and Poverty, 75th anniversary edition (Schalkenbach Foundation, 1954) — used as the text quoted throughout the volume.
5. Andelson, "Where Society's Claim Stops: An Evaluation of Seligman's Ethical Critique of Henry George," American Journal of Economics and Sociology 27(1), 1968, pp. 41–53 — used as the basis for Ch. 19 (E-claim; objection).