Nearer to Sraffa than Marx: Adam Smith on Productive and Unproductive Labour

This paper supercedes an earlier attempt I made to pin down the meaning and significance of Adam Smith’s theory of productive and unproductive labour. (Strathclyde Discussion Papers in Economics, No.08-05) My conclusion then was that while Smith’s understanding of what was needed to achieve economic growth was sound, his discussion was marred by apparently conflicting definitions of productive labour. That (essentially conventional) interpretation does not, I now believe, do justice to Smith. Revision is therefore called for: hence the present paper.

We investigate Adam Smith’s analysis of the properties of what he called “productive” - as against “unproductive” - labour, a concept which commentators have frequently found problematic. Puzzles have been noted and inconsistency alleged. A question arises – did Smith confuse two different concepts of productive labour? We believe that, despite the apparent problems, a coherent reading of Smith’s account of productive and unproductive labour is in fact possible: if “productive labour” is understood to refer comprehensively to labour which not only maintains but, through producing a net surplus, adds to the community’s stock of wealth – as regards either the financial or the real resources which make possible economic growth – the difficulties with Smith’s treatment largely disappear.