The empire strikes back: Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill,
and the Robust Political Economy of empire
Christopher J. Coyne
&
Abigail R. Hall
Published online: 24 February 2013
#
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013
Abstract Recent scholarship regarding the idea of a U.S. Empire has raised serious
questions as to the feasibility and desirability of imperial ambitions. This paper traces
the debate over the net-benefit of empire back to the Classical economists. Adam
Smith argued that the British Empire was a net cost while John Stuart Mill concluded
the same empire was a net benefit. Contemporary arguments about a U.S. Empire
map neatly to the divergent views of Smith and Mill. In addition to engaging in an
exercise in history of thought, we use Smith’s political economy as a means of
adjudicating between the different claims regarding the feasibility of empire. In doing
so, we subject the claims of proponents of American Empire against the standard of
robust political economy, which holds that intervention must generate desirable
outcomes where less than ideal incentive and epistemic conditions hold. In doing
so, we conclude that many of the claims made by proponents are fragile under less
than ideal conditions.
Keywords Empire
.
Imperialism Adam Smith
.
John Stuart Mill
.
Robust Political
Economy
JEL Classifications B0
.
B10
.
B21
.
B31
1 Introduction
“How is the Empire?” These words are attributed to King George V of England as he
lay on his deathbed. The British Empire, having just survived the devastating effects
Rev Austrian Econ (2014) 27:359–385
DOI 10.1007/s11138-013-0212-1
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Southern Economic Association Annual Meetings,
New Orleans, LA, November 17, 2012.
C. J. Coyne
:
A. R. Hall (*)
Department of Economics, George Mason University, MS 3G4, Fairfax, VA 22030, USA
e-mail: ahall15@gmu.edu
C. J. Coyne
e-mail: CCoyne3@GMU.edu
@Phil_Robichaud
@deepthiw
@JoseServera