Georgism faces something of an image problem. A common perception is that it’s a “crank” movement unsupported by credible authorities in economics. Georgists often try to counter this by citing the widespread support land value taxation enjoys among economists. While helpful as a start, this generally doesn’t go very far. Many modern economists are happy to call LVT the best or “least bad” tax but aren’t actually
There are several reasons why George has been forgotten in the academic study of economics. First, there was a concerted effort backed by funding to get George discounted at American universities. In George’s time there was a huge campaign led by land owners and industrialists to discredit his work and associate it with Marxism, especially in the UK.
Second, the proponents of neoclassical economics tended to reduce economics to mathematical models which took no account of the social aspects of the economy. This also led to regarding land as part of capital, thus concealing its real nature in production or use, as well as the question of legitimate ownership. Locke had already confused the question of land ownership as an extension of self-ownership through labour.
Third, Georgists themselves, with very few exceptions, have not engaged in academic discussion of economics. Instead they have tended to devote themselves to campaigning for tax reform and remain isolated from academia. Only recently with the publication of The Annotated Works of Henry George in six volumes, of which I was editor of Volume VI, has there been a scholarly edition of his works. So, while some leading economists have paid regard to George, Georgists themselves have generally not paid regard to economic theory more widely. On the contrary, they have positioned themselves as opponents of academic economics. They have also, as least some, tended to ‘demonize’ landowners as criminals and parasites. This has contributed to the impression of Georgists being ‘cranks’.
So it is worth remembering that there were very fierce campaigns against George in the UK and USA led by landowners and industrialists in his own time. This was coupled with the social theories of Herbert Spencer who regarded economic competition as part of the evolutionary ‘struggle for survival’ where the poor, as the weaker elements of the species, will gradually be eliminated through evolutionary progress. This was supported by ‘Social Darwinism’ which, again, was used against George. But the seeds of these ideas are already present in Adam Smith and his theory of self-interest and competition as the basis of ‘market forces’ that drive the economy. Smith had already removed economics from sociality. Hence there has been a continuous battle since the industrial revolution between a purely mechanistic approach to economics and a social approach that sought equity. In other words, there has always been a tension between blind economic determinism and the political quest for social justice.
This is an excellent article showing how Georgists would do well to engage more widely in economic discourse. There are other good examples, such as Herman Daly’s ecological economics, or Mariana Mazzucato who shows how government policies play an important role in the economy. If taxation of land and natural resources is the appropriate revenue for government, then the proper functions of government also call for consideration. It is not merely a question of less government but of just government for the common good. There is the question of looking at society more widely. George never intended an exclusive concentration on economics divorced from the wider aspects of civil society, a divorce characteristic of neoclassical economics. That is a point Joseph Stiglitz often makes.
A really interesting read. It's a pity people don't just read *Progress and Poverty*, rather than write it off as a crank piece without knowing anything about it.
Hi, thank you for writing. I learned about Stiglitz in school but I had no idea he was Georgist, in fact Georgism isn't even taught as part of the undergraduate politics/econ major. To that end I'm wondering about Georgism's "image problem", as you put it, and I don't understand how, given its popularity during the late 19th century, Georgism seems to have disappeared from mainstream economic theory and debate in the 20th century until today. Not everybody might call themself a Georgist, but not everybody might call themself a Keynesian either, and one of those words is almost a household name, and the other feels so obscure -- why? Or do I have it all wrong, and are there actually tons of Georgist thinkers, like Stiglitz, in 20th and 21st century politics, hiding in plain sight? I’m certain I’m missing something but I don’t know how to put my finger on it.
This is the core moral underpinning of Land Value Taxes and DBCFT. If the goal is to build a more prosperous “Protopian” society, we need to lift burdens off of the people who make up that society. This means abolishing income taxes and replacing them with taxes that do not depress productivity.
When switching to better forms of taxation, rent-seeking and wealth extraction would be minimized, reducing inequality without arbitrary confiscation of earned wealth.
This marries the goals of the political left and right, yet no one discusses it because the powerful vested interests have no interest in pursuing common sense-policymaking.
What’s weird to me is that though mainstream economics finds Georgism to be a fringe theory, the emphasis on stagnation versus high-economic growth seems more odd. Most of history is not-growth. Then there was the railroad which enabled more land and later on the car which enabled more land. It’s not all land, obviously, but economic growth definitely happens when you have a big cost for individuals stricken as land is found and landowners hadn’t yet figured out how to price it…
There are several reasons why George has been forgotten in the academic study of economics. First, there was a concerted effort backed by funding to get George discounted at American universities. In George’s time there was a huge campaign led by land owners and industrialists to discredit his work and associate it with Marxism, especially in the UK.
Second, the proponents of neoclassical economics tended to reduce economics to mathematical models which took no account of the social aspects of the economy. This also led to regarding land as part of capital, thus concealing its real nature in production or use, as well as the question of legitimate ownership. Locke had already confused the question of land ownership as an extension of self-ownership through labour.
Third, Georgists themselves, with very few exceptions, have not engaged in academic discussion of economics. Instead they have tended to devote themselves to campaigning for tax reform and remain isolated from academia. Only recently with the publication of The Annotated Works of Henry George in six volumes, of which I was editor of Volume VI, has there been a scholarly edition of his works. So, while some leading economists have paid regard to George, Georgists themselves have generally not paid regard to economic theory more widely. On the contrary, they have positioned themselves as opponents of academic economics. They have also, as least some, tended to ‘demonize’ landowners as criminals and parasites. This has contributed to the impression of Georgists being ‘cranks’.
So it is worth remembering that there were very fierce campaigns against George in the UK and USA led by landowners and industrialists in his own time. This was coupled with the social theories of Herbert Spencer who regarded economic competition as part of the evolutionary ‘struggle for survival’ where the poor, as the weaker elements of the species, will gradually be eliminated through evolutionary progress. This was supported by ‘Social Darwinism’ which, again, was used against George. But the seeds of these ideas are already present in Adam Smith and his theory of self-interest and competition as the basis of ‘market forces’ that drive the economy. Smith had already removed economics from sociality. Hence there has been a continuous battle since the industrial revolution between a purely mechanistic approach to economics and a social approach that sought equity. In other words, there has always been a tension between blind economic determinism and the political quest for social justice.
Excellent essay. Looking forward to reading the rest of this series.
This is an excellent article showing how Georgists would do well to engage more widely in economic discourse. There are other good examples, such as Herman Daly’s ecological economics, or Mariana Mazzucato who shows how government policies play an important role in the economy. If taxation of land and natural resources is the appropriate revenue for government, then the proper functions of government also call for consideration. It is not merely a question of less government but of just government for the common good. There is the question of looking at society more widely. George never intended an exclusive concentration on economics divorced from the wider aspects of civil society, a divorce characteristic of neoclassical economics. That is a point Joseph Stiglitz often makes.
A really interesting read. It's a pity people don't just read *Progress and Poverty*, rather than write it off as a crank piece without knowing anything about it.
Hi, thank you for writing. I learned about Stiglitz in school but I had no idea he was Georgist, in fact Georgism isn't even taught as part of the undergraduate politics/econ major. To that end I'm wondering about Georgism's "image problem", as you put it, and I don't understand how, given its popularity during the late 19th century, Georgism seems to have disappeared from mainstream economic theory and debate in the 20th century until today. Not everybody might call themself a Georgist, but not everybody might call themself a Keynesian either, and one of those words is almost a household name, and the other feels so obscure -- why? Or do I have it all wrong, and are there actually tons of Georgist thinkers, like Stiglitz, in 20th and 21st century politics, hiding in plain sight? I’m certain I’m missing something but I don’t know how to put my finger on it.
"And switch from taxing good things like labor."
This is the core moral underpinning of Land Value Taxes and DBCFT. If the goal is to build a more prosperous “Protopian” society, we need to lift burdens off of the people who make up that society. This means abolishing income taxes and replacing them with taxes that do not depress productivity.
When switching to better forms of taxation, rent-seeking and wealth extraction would be minimized, reducing inequality without arbitrary confiscation of earned wealth.
This marries the goals of the political left and right, yet no one discusses it because the powerful vested interests have no interest in pursuing common sense-policymaking.
Great essay!
What’s weird to me is that though mainstream economics finds Georgism to be a fringe theory, the emphasis on stagnation versus high-economic growth seems more odd. Most of history is not-growth. Then there was the railroad which enabled more land and later on the car which enabled more land. It’s not all land, obviously, but economic growth definitely happens when you have a big cost for individuals stricken as land is found and landowners hadn’t yet figured out how to price it…
Paul Krugman is also in-essence a Georgist, and has written a number of YIMBY-friendly blog posts in recent years.