be an accurate measure of what, on the score of their supposed specific productivity, they ought to get. A thing which has no existence can hardly serve as a criterion of desert. When the efforts of men are merged in social or coöperative production, they can never be again "unscrambled " into specific productivities.

We shall, however, be giving up a great deal if we surrender completely the idea of specific productivity. It has been, even before its precise formulation by Professor Clark, a tacit tenet of economic thought. It is with us all a sort of rudimentary survival of the conception of things which included the "economic harmonies," the doctrine of laissez faire, and the dogma of the unqualified beneficence of the competitive process.

Let us, however, go wherever our analysis leads us. With the idea of specific productivity eliminated the process of valuation remains just what it has been, an orderly, systematic, incontrovertible thing, just as logical as any member of the Austrian school ever conceived it to be. But the distribution of personal income stands out for what it is, a system of haphazard uncertainties, not merely skewed by the discrepancies of inheritance and original title, not merely vitiated in part by productivity of a predatory sort, but deprived of the erstwhile soothing correlation between reward and productive contribution.

Things-as-they-are have been the beneficiary of an overdone system of apologetics. The concept of specific productivity, both in the explicit form into which it has been cast by Professor Clark, and also as it appears disguised and latent in an uncritical approval of the competitive idea, has tended to blind us to the evil which is mixed with the good in our distributive arrangements, has tended to make us, as economists,

more conservative than we have any right to be. The Distribution of Wealth has been denounced as the apologia of an unwarranted conservatism.1 Denunciation, however, needs to be followed up by specific disproof. The error in the specific productivity thesis must be precisely located, and must come to be generally understood if it is to be deprived of the undue influence for conservatism which it undoubtedly continues to exercise even in the rarified and corrected form in which it is still cherished.

WALTER M. ADRIANCE.

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY.

1 E. g., by Professor Wicker at the New York Meeting of the American Economic Association.

REVIEW

HOBSON'S WORK AND WEALTH 1

MR. HOBSON is not the least of a group shall we call them super-economists ? - whose criticism of the current system of economic life and thought is rendering valuable service in the cause of truth. In the present book he gives us his own theory of value and distribution, filling out the outline offered in the concluding chapter of an earlier volume entitled "The Industrial System." It is, of course, a theory of ideal value and distribution, for the actual system has already been made the target of his criticism. When a critic turns reformer and begins to construct, his friends may well fear for him and his adversaries thank him for giving them a better chance than ever before to hit back. And yet to return Hobson's fire in the name of science is like attacking Bergson for not being logical, since Hobson has renounced science as powerless to render a final decision in social disputes. Nevertheless, it is as a work of social science that Hobson's book must be appraised.

As such, the first striking feature it presents to the reader is the undefined and controversial nature of its fundamental concept; its value-yardstick. The author himself trusts that the idea of "organic welfare," which he takes as the standard of value, may assume definite shape in the mind of the reader by dint of many concrete cases, and that the reader, even if he disagrees with the author as to what, in any given case, the highest good of society demands, may still accept the same method of analysis and follow it in his own

A Human Valuation, by J. A. Hobson, The Macmillan Co.,

thinking. In other words, each separate discussion must stand on its own merits as an attempt to discover what course of action will best serve the social welfare in each particular situation.

Two features of this standard of value stand out sharply. It must arbitrate between good and bad desires; and it must include all the social consequences of everything it considers. Vicious consumption is thus a cost, and healthful labor a utility regardless of the pleasures of vice or the temporary fatigues of salutary work. Cost, in this scheme of valuation, assumes many aspects. It includes the necessary "keep" of the worker (page 44) and this in turn includes (1) the restoration of vital force spent in labor, and (2) the minimum reward necessary to induce the laborer to work a very different thing, be it noted. Cost includes also such things as the "repression of personality" (page 50), the "surrender of (his) personal judgment" (page 53) and the "degradation of (his) highest quality" (page 45). One feels almost as if the millennium had been placed on the debit side of the ledger and one were invited to produce assets enough to balance the books.

The rule adopted for the reform of society is that of distribution according to needs, and the elimination of the heaviest human costs of production by direct social control, the goal being a condition of minimum cost and maximum welfare. Hobson's ideal man is so perfectly socialized that he will work as hard as is good for him, if his reasonable wants are provided for. Further incentives gauged according to efficiency will have no effect on him. "But as human nature actually stands, this stimulus to do a 'best' that is better than the average, must be regarded as a moral 'need' to be counted for purposes of remuneration along with the physiological needs" (page 168). Thus the two conflicting standards are made one by a logical tour de force. Certainly, since social welfare is the ultimate standard, and since even for the individual the highest welfare lies in achieving the finest relationship to society, the man who demands an efficiency bonus is the farther from his highest possibilities;

But this is a need

he "needs" more to make him perfect. that can hardly be met by giving him his bonus, for that would be a reward of badness, and tend to harden him in the error of his ways. What he "needs" is not more money, but the services of a social evangelist; possibly he needs both. But any extra wage that is granted him must, in common fairness, be granted also to his comrade who is altruistic enough to do his best work even without this stimulus. It will hardly do to leave the ninety and nine permanently in the wilderness. The net result would seem to be that with men as they are, an efficiency distribution is necessary, tho it may be superimposed on a minimum wage based on need. Further than this, Hobson's effort to reconcile the two standards fails to carry conviction, and this failure is probably the most serious weakness in the book.

In assessing the costs of production the dominant note is Tarde's distinction between creation and repetition. The ultimate conclusion is that work of the first kind which is its own reward may safely be left to private enterprise, while routine production, which is costly, must be socialized. "How can the creative work of the entrepreneur be entrusted to private enterprise while the routine work of his employees is under social control?" the reader may ask. The answer is that Hobson minimizes the creative element in the entrepreneur's work. To him, creative activities are chiefly those of art, research and invention, and the field of private enterprise is correspondingly narrow.

To many readers the worst fault of the book will undoubtedly appear to be the dearth of positive suggestion as to methods of installing the millennial system, involving as it does nothing less than a moderate form of collectivism. This lack is emphasized by the author's criticisms of state socialism on the one hand and of the industrial federation of the syndicalists on the other. Even on the fundamental question of interest no definite program is offered. We are told that there is much saving on the part of the poor which costs more than it is worth, and should not be undertaken Other saving is "costless" and we may be able to

at all.