Mercantilism is an economic theory that holds the prosperity of a nation is dependent upon its supply of capital, and that the global volume of international trade is "unchangeable." Economic assets or capital, are represented by bullion (gold, silver, and trade value) held by the state, which is best increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations (exports minus imports) and assumes wealth and monetary assets are identical. Mercantilism suggests that the ruling government should advance these goals by playing a protectionist role in the economy; by encouraging exports and discouraging imports, notably through the use of tariffs and subsidies.^[1]

Influence

Mercantilism was the dominant school of thought in Europe throughout the late Renaissance and early modern period (from the 15th to the 18th century). Mercantilism encouraged the many inter-European wars of the period and fueled European expansion and imperialism both in Europe and throughout the rest of the world until the 19th century or early 20th century. Arguments have been made for the historical promotion of mercantalism in Europe since recorded history with authors noting the trade policies of Athens and its Delian League specifically mention control of value of trade in bullion as necessary for the promotion of the Greek polis. Additionally, the noted competition of Medieval Monarchs for control of the market town trade and the Spice trade, as well as the copious documentation of Venice, Genoa, and Pisa regarding control of the Mediterranean Sea trade of bullion clearly points to an early understanding of mercantalistic principles. However, as a codified school, Mercantalism's real birth begins with Empiricism of the Rennaisance which first began qualifying accurately large scale trade.

England began the first large scale and integrative approach to mercantilism during the Elizabethan Era. The era featured various but often disjointed efforts by the court of Queen Elizabeth to develop a naval and merchant fleet capable of challenging the Spanish stranglehold on trade and expanding the growth of bullion at home. Queen Elizabeth promoted the expansion of the Trade and Navigation Acts in Parliament and gave orders-in-council to her Admiralty for protecting and promoting English shipping. These efforts organized national resources sufficiently in defending England from the far larger and powerful Spanish Empire and in turn provided the foundation for establishing the most successful global empire in history. The authors noted most for establishing the English mercantilist system include the works by Gerard de Malynes and Thomas Mun which first articulated the Elizabethan System, and in turn were then subsequently developed further by Josiah Child. The English era provided the bulk of surveys and evidence of mercantalism and its success spurred the French into forming their own system. Numerous French authors helped cement French policy around mercantilism in the 17th century with its own system of French mercantilism policy best articulated by Jean-Baptiste Colbert. In later years, the United States took mercantalism into its most advanced and fully developed economic policy level when Alexander Hamilton enunciated the Hamiltonian economic program, and Abraham Lincoln finally solidified a trade and industrial policy which was to guide American economic policy into 1972. Paradoxically, during the 19th and early 20th century period, when America's pursuit of mercantalism made it the greatest economic power in the world, in contrats Europe on the whole with the noteworthy exception of Germany, began abandoning mercantalism.

In Europe, academic belief in mercantilism began to fade in the late 18th century, especially in England, as the arguments of Adam Smith and classical economists rose in conjuction with the expansion and international banking infrastructure of financial capitalism and the practical power and influence it had on policy. The confluence of these movements peaked with the defeat of national patriotism in Europe following World War Two and the end of European colonialism during the Cold War. Each of the main European powers which had struggled to maintain mercantalistic policies as means of promoting their national supremacy had been defeated or occupied in turn, such as France, Netherlands, Italy, Germany, whilst the United Kingdom was indebted to the United States. Comparatively, the two most powerful victors, the Soviet Union and the United States pursued differeing varients of internationalism, communism and capitalism. In turn, the supremacy of the United States gave it the opportunity to force its allies into accepting a new multi-national economic system of free-trade under America's corporate and financial dominance thereby dispacing the royal and nationalist centers of power in Europe. However, throughout the rest of the world, mercantilism or neo-mercantilism has been pursued, most successfully in Asia.

Neo-mercantalism and its related school of economic nationalism, which emphasizes the nation and government intervention but deemphasizes bullion in favor of productive capacity, has been and continues to be a dominant model of development economics, throughout the non-Western world. Many of these nations seek to practice either neo-mercantalism or economic nationalism in relation to the policies of Western economic powerhouses. Asian nations in particular study 19th century United States policy known as the National System, including the American System which was promoted by Henry Clay and Friedrich List whose ideas also began the foundations of Germany's rise to greatness in the Zollverein sytem. Countries most successful with these policies include Japan as it has practiced since the reforms of the 19th century, and as practiced in the late 20th and early 21st century by other Asian nations such as the Four Asian Tigers of Hong Kong^{[according to whom?]}, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, and most significantly, China and India. The export-led economies of present-day China, Japan, and Germany are cited as the most successful latter-day variants of mercantilism.

Today, mercantilism has allowed China, Brazil, India, Japan, and the Asian Tigers to displace the United States and Western European nations as the most powerfull economic actors on the globe. Nonetheless, (as a whole) mercantalism is rejected by Western economists, though some elements are looked upon favorably by Western non-economists.

Theory

Most of the European economists who wrote between 1500 and 1750 are today generally considered mercantilists; this term was initially used solely by critics, such as Mirabeau and Smith, but was quickly adopted by historians. Originally the standard English term was "mercantile system". The word "mercantilism" was introduced into English from German in the early 19th century.

The bulk of what is commonly called "mercantilist literature" appeared in the 1620s in Great Britain.^[2] Smith saw English merchant Thomas Mun (1571–1641) as a major creator of the mercantile system, especially in his posthumously published Treasure by Foreign Trade (1664), which Smith considered the archetype of manifesto of the movement.^[3] Perhaps the last major mercantilist work was James Steuart’s Principles of Political Economy published in 1767.^[2]

Beyond England, Italy, France, and Spain produced noted writers who pursued mercantilist themes in their work, indeed the earliest examples of mercantilism are from outside of England: in Italy, Giovanni Botero (1544–1617) and Antonio Serra (1580–?), in France, Jean Bodin, Colbert and some other precursors to the physiocrats, in Spain, the School of Salamanca writers Francisco de Vitoria (1480 or 1483–1546), Domingo de Soto (1494–1560), Martin de Azpilcueta (1491–1586), and Luis de Molina (1535–1600). Themes also existed in writers from the German historical school from List, as well as followers of the "American system" and British "free-trade imperialism," thus stretching the system into the nineteenth century. However, many British writers, including Mun and Misselden, were merchants, while many of the writers from other countries were public officials. Beyond mercantilism as a way of understanding the wealth and power of nations, Mun and Misselden are noted for their viewpoints on a wide range of economic matters.^[4]

The Austrian lawyer and scholar Philipp Wilhelm von Hornick, in his Austria Over All, If She Only Will of 1684, detailed a nine-point program of what he deemed effective national economy, which sums up the tenets of mercantilism comprehensively:^[5]

• That every inch of a country's soil be utilized for agriculture, mining or manufacturing.
• That all raw materials found in a country be used in domestic manufacture, since finished goods have a higher value than raw materials.
• That a large, working population be encouraged.
• That all export of gold and silver be prohibited and all domestic money be kept in circulation.
• That all imports of foreign goods be discouraged as much as possible.
• That where certain imports are indispensable they be obtained at first hand, in exchange for other domestic goods instead of gold and silver.
• That as much as possible, imports be confined to raw materials that can be finished [in the home country].
• That opportunities be constantly sought for selling a country's surplus manufactures to foreigners, so far as necessary, for gold and silver.
• That no importation be allowed if such goods are sufficiently and suitably supplied at home.

Other than Von Hornick, there were no mercantilist writers presenting an overarching scheme for the ideal economy, as Adam Smith would later do for classical economics. Rather, each mercantilist writer tended to focus on a single area of the economy.^[6] Only later did non-mercantilist scholars integrate these "diverse" ideas into what they called mercantilism. Some scholars thus reject the idea of mercantilism completely, arguing that it gives "a false unity to disparate events". Smith saw the mercantile system as an enormous conspiracy by manufacturers and merchants against consumers, a view that has led some authors, especially Robert E. Ekelund and Robert D. Tollison to call mercantilism "a rent-seeking society". To a certain extent, mercantilist doctrine itself made a general theory of economics impossible. Mercantilists viewed the economic system as a zero-sum game, in which any gain by one party required a loss by another.^[7] Thus, any system of policies that benefited one group would by definition harm the other, and there was no possibility of economics being used to maximize the "commonwealth", or common good.^[8] Mercantilists' writings were also generally created to rationalize particular practices rather than as investigations into the best policies.^[9]

Mercantilist domestic policy was more fragmented than its trade policy. While Adam Smith portrayed mercantilism as supportive of strict controls over the economy, many mercantilists disagreed. The early modern era was one of letters patent and government-imposed monopolies; some mercantilists supported these, but others acknowledged the corruption and inefficiency of such systems. Many mercantilists also realized that the inevitable results of quotas and price ceilings were black markets. One notion mercantilists widely agreed upon was the need for economic oppression of the working population; laborers and farmers were to live at the "margins of subsistence". The goal was to maximize production, with no concern for consumption. Extra money, free time, or education for the "lower classes" was seen to inevitably lead to vice and laziness, and would result in harm to the economy.^[10]

Causes

Scholars are divided on why mercantilism was the dominant economic ideology for two and a half centuries.^[11] One group, represented by Jacob Viner, argues that mercantilism was simply a straightforward, common-sense system whose logical fallacies could not be discovered by the people of the time, as they simply lacked the required analytical tools.

The second school, supported by scholars such as Robert B. Ekelund, contends that mercantilism was not a mistake, but rather the best possible system for those who developed it. This school argues that mercantilist policies were developed and enforced by rent-seeking merchants and governments. Merchants benefited greatly from the enforced monopolies, bans on foreign competition, and poverty of the workers. Governments benefited from the high tariffs and payments from the merchants. Whereas later economic ideas were often developed by academics and philosophers, almost all mercantilist writers were merchants or government officials.^[12]

A third explanation for mercantilism is monetary. European trade exported bullion to pay for goods from Asia, thus reducing the money supply and putting downward pressure on prices and economic activity. The evidence for this hypothesis is the lack of inflation in the English economy until the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars when paper money was extensively used.

A fourth explanation lies in the increasing professionalisation and technification of the wars of the era, which turned the maintenance of adequate reserve funds in the prospect of war into a more and more expensive and eventually competitive business.

Mercantilism developed at a time when the European economy was in transition. Isolated feudal estates were being replaced by centralized nation-states as the focus of power. Technological changes in shipping and the growth of urban centers led to a rapid increase in international trade.^[13] Mercantilism focused on how this trade could best aid the states. Another important change was the introduction of double-entry bookkeeping and modern accounting. This accounting made extremely clear the inflow and outflow of trade, contributing to the close scrutiny given to the balance of trade.^[14] Of course, the impact of the discovery of America cannot be ignored. New markets and new mines propelled foreign trade to previously inconceivable heights. The latter led to “the great upward movement in prices” and an increase in “the volume of merchant activity itself.”^[15]

Prior to mercantilism, the most important economic work done in Europe was by the medieval scholastic theorists. The goal of these thinkers was to find an economic system that was compatible with Christian doctrines of piety and justice. They focused mainly on microeconomics and local exchanges between individuals. Mercantilism was closely aligned with the other theories and ideas that were replacing the medieval worldview. This period saw the adoption of the very Machiavellian realpolitik and the primacy of the raison d'état in international relations. The mercantilist idea that all trade was a zero sum game, in which each side was trying to best the other in a ruthless competition, was integrated into the works of Thomas Hobbes. The dark view of human nature also fit well with the Puritan view of the world, and some of the most stridently mercantilist legislation, such as the Navigation Acts, were enacted by the government of Oliver Cromwell.^[16]

Policies

Mercantilist ideas were the dominant economic ideology of all of Europe in the early modern period, and most states embraced it to a certain degree. Mercantilism was centered in England and France, and it was in these states that mercantilist polices were most often enacted. Mercantilism arose in France in the early 16th century, soon after the monarchy had become the dominant force in French politics. In 1539, an important decree banned the importation of woolen goods from Spain and some parts of Flanders. The next year, a number of restrictions were imposed on the export of bullion.^[17] Over the rest of the sixteenth century further protectionist measures were introduced. The height of French mercantilism is closely associated with Jean-Baptiste Colbert, finance minister for 22 years in the 17th century, to the extent that French mercantilism is sometimes called "Colbertism". Under Colbert, the French government became deeply involved in the economy in order to increase exports. Protectionist policies were enacted that limited imports and favored exports. Industries were organized into guilds and monopolies, and production was regulated by the state through a series of over a thousands directives outlining how different products should be produced. To encourage industry, foreign artisans and craftsmen were imported. Colbert also worked to decrease internal barriers to trade, reducing internal tariffs and building an extensive network of roads and canals. Colbert's policies were quite successful, and France's industrial output and economy grew considerably during this period, as France became the dominant European power. He was less successful in turning France into a major trading power, and Britain and the Netherlands remained supreme in this field.^[18]

In England, mercantilism reached its peak during the Long Parliament government (1640–1660). Mercantilist policies were also embraced throughout much of the Tudor and Stuart periods, with Robert Walpole being another major proponent. In Britain, government control over the domestic economy was far less extensive than on the Continent, limited by common law and the steadily increasing power of Parliament.^[19] Government-controlled monopolies were common, especially before the English Civil War, but were often controversial.^[20] British mercantilist writers were themselves divided on whether domestic controls were necessary. British mercantilism thus mainly took the form of efforts to control trade. A wide array of regulations was put in place to encourage exports and discourage imports. Tariffs were placed on imports and bounties given for exports, and the export of some raw materials was banned completely. The Navigation Acts expelled foreign merchants from England's domestic trade. The nation aggressively sought colonies and once under British control, regulations were imposed that allowed the colony to only produce raw materials and to only trade with Britain. This led to friction with the inhabitants of these colonies, and mercantilist policies were one of the major causes of the American Revolution. Over all, however, mercantilist policies had an important effect on Britain helping turn it into the world's dominant trader, and an international superpower. One domestic policy that had a lasting impact was the conversion of "waste lands" to agricultural use. Mercantilists felt that to maximize a nation's power all land and resources had to be used to their utmost, and this era thus saw projects like the draining of The Fens.^[21]

The other nations of Europe also embraced mercantilism to varying degrees. The Netherlands, which had become the financial center of Europe by being its most efficient trader, had little interest in seeing trade restricted and adopted few mercantilist policies. Mercantilism became prominent in Central Europe and Scandinavia after the Thirty Years' War (1618–1648), with Christina of Sweden and Christian IV of Denmark being notable proponents. The Habsburg Holy Roman Emperors had long been interested in mercantilist policies, but the vast and decentralized nature of their empire made implementing such notions difficult. Some constituent states of the empire did embrace Mercantilism, most notably Prussia, which under Frederick the Great had perhaps the most rigidly controlled economy in Europe. During the economic collapse of the seventeenth century Spain had little coherent economic policy, but French mercantilist policies were imported by Philip V with some success. Russia under Peter I (Peter the Great) attempted to pursue mercantilism, but had little success because of Russia's lack of a large merchant class or an industrial base.

Mercantilism also fueled the intense violence of the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. Since the level of world trade was viewed as fixed, it followed that the only way to increase a nation's trade was to take it from another. A number of wars, most notably the Anglo-Dutch Wars and the Franco-Dutch Wars, can be linked directly to mercantilist theories. The unending warfare of this period also reinforced mercantilism as it was seen as an essential component to military success. It also fueled the imperialism of this era, as each nation that was able attempted to seize colonies that would be sources of raw materials and exclusive markets. During the mercantilist period, European power spread around the globe. As with the domestic economy this expansion was often conducted under the aegis of companies with government-guaranteed monopolies in a certain part of the world, such as the Dutch East India Company or the Hudson's Bay Company (operating in present-day Canada).

Criticisms

Adam Smith and David Hume are considered to be the founding fathers of anti-mercantilist thought. A number of scholars found important flaws with mercantilism long before Adam Smith developed an ideology that could fully replace it. Critics like Hume, Dudley North, and John Locke undermined much of mercantilism, and it steadily lost favor during the 18th century. In 1690, John Locke made perfectly clear that prices vary in proportion to the quantity of money, but in general, the mercantilists did not put this together^{[citation needed]}. Locke's Second Treatise also points towards the heart of the anti-mercantilist critique: that the wealth of the world is not fixed, but created by human labor (represented embryonically by Locke's labor theory of value). Mercantilists failed to understand the notions of absolute advantage and comparative advantage (although this idea was only fully fleshed out in 1817 by David Ricardo) and the benefits of trade^{[citation needed]}. For instance, suppose Portugal was a more efficient producer of both wine and cloth than England, yet in England it was relatively cheaper to produce cloth compared to wine. Thus if Portugal specialized in wine and England in cloth, both states would end up better off if they traded. This is an example of the reciprocal benefits of trade due to a comparative advantage. In modern economic theory, trade is not a zero-sum game of cutthroat competition because both sides can benefit.

Hume famously noted the impossibility of the mercantilists' goal of a constant positive balance of trade^{[citation needed]}. As bullion flowed into one country, the supply would increase and the value of bullion in that state would steadily decline relative to other goods. Conversely, in the state exporting bullion, its value would slowly rise. Eventually it would no longer be cost-effective to export goods from the high-price country to the low-price country, and the balance of trade would reverse itself. Mercantilists fundamentally misunderstood this, long arguing that an increase in the money supply simply meant that everyone gets richer.^[22]

The importance placed on bullion was also a central target, even if many mercantilists had themselves begun to de-emphasize the importance of gold and silver. Adam Smith noted at the core of the mercantile system was the "popular folly of confusing wealth with money," bullion was just the same as any other commodity, and there was no reason to give it special treatment.^[23] More recently, scholars have discounted the accuracy of this critique. They believe Mun and Misselden were not making this mistake in the 1620s, and point to their followers Child and Davenant, who, in 1699, wrote: "Gold and Silver are indeed the Measure of Trade, but that the Spring and Original of it, in all nations is the Natural or Artificial Product of the Country; that is to say, what this Land or what this Labour and Industry Produces."^[24] The critique that mercantilism was a form of rent-seeking has also seen criticism, as scholars such Jacob Viner in the 1930s point out that merchant mercantilists such as Mun understood that they would not gain by higher prices for English wares abroad.^[25]

The first school to completely reject mercantilism was the physiocrats, who developed their theories in France. Their theories also had several important problems, and the replacement of mercantilism did not come until Adam Smith published The Wealth of Nations in 1776. This book outlines the basics of what is today known as classical economics. Smith spends a considerable portion of the book rebutting the arguments of the mercantilists, though often these are simplified or exaggerated versions of mercantilist thought.^[12]

Scholars are also divided over the cause of mercantilism's end. Those who believe the theory was simply an error hold that its replacement was inevitable as soon as Smith's more accurate ideas were unveiled. Those who feel that mercantilism was rent seeking hold that it ended only when major power shifts occurred. In Britain, mercantilism faded as the Parliament gained the monarch's power to grant monopolies. While the wealthy capitalists who controlled the House of Commons benefited from these monopolies, Parliament found it difficult to implement them because of the high cost of group decision making.^[26]

Mercantilist regulations were steadily removed over the course of the Eighteenth Century in Britain, and during the 19th century the British government fully embraced free trade and Smith's laissez-faire economics. On the continent, the process was somewhat different. In France economic control remained in the hands of the royal family and mercantilism continued until the French Revolution. In Germany mercantilism remained an important ideology in the 19th and early 20th centuries, when the historical school of economics was paramount.^[27]

Legacy

In spite of Adam Smith's repudiation of mercantilism, it was favored in the United States by such prominent figures as Alexander Hamilton^[28], Henry Clay, Henry Charles Carey, and Abraham Lincoln and in Britain by such figures as Thomas Malthus. When Britain passed its Corn Laws in 1815, Malthus thought such restrictions were a good idea, but Ricardo disagreed. Eventually Smith's view was accepted in the English-speaking world, and in 1849 the corn laws were repealed largely on "Free Market" arguments given by Sir Robert Peel.^{[citation needed]}

Adam Smith rejected the mercantilist focus on production, arguing that consumption was the only way to grow an economy. Keynes argued that encouraging production was just as important as consumption. Keynes also noted that in the early modern period the focus on the bullion supplies was reasonable. In an era before paper money, an increase for bullion was one of the few ways to increase the money supply. Keynes and other economists of the period also realized the balance of payments is an important concern. Since the 1930s, all nations have closely monitored the inflow and outflow of capital, and most economists agree that a favorable balance of trade is desirable. ^{[citation needed]} Keynes also supported government intervention in the economy as necessity, as did mercantilism.^[29] Today the word remains a pejorative term, often used to attack various forms of protectionism.^[30] The similarities between Keynesianism, and its successor ideas, with mercantilism have sometimes led critics to call them neo-mercantilism. Indeed, Paul Samuelson, writing within a Keynesian framework, defended mercantilism, writing: "With employment less than full and Net National Product suboptimal, all the debunked mercantilist arguments turn out to be valid."^[31]

Some other systems that do copy several mercantilist policies, such as Japan's economic system, are also sometimes called neo-mercantilist.^[32] In an essay appearing in the 14 May 2007 issue of Newsweek, economist Robert J. Samuelson argued that China was pursuing an essentially mercantilist trade policy that threatened to undermine the post-World War II international economic structure.^[33]

The Austrian School of economics, always an opponent of mercantilism, describes it this way:

Mercantilism, which reached its height in the Europe of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, was a system of statism which employed economic fallacy to build up a structure of imperial state power, as well as special subsidy and monopolistic privilege to individuals or groups favored by the state. Thus, mercantilism held exports should be encouraged by the government and imports discouraged.^[34]

One area Smith was reversed on well before Keynes was in the use of data. Mercantilists, who were generally merchants or government officials, gathered vast amounts of trade data and used it considerably in their research and writing. William Petty, a strong mercantilist, is generally credited with being the first to use empirical analysis to study the economy. Smith rejected this, arguing that deductive reasoning from base principles was the proper method to discover economic truths. Today, many schools of economics accept that both methods are important, the Austrian School being a notable exception.^{[citation needed]}

In specific instances, protectionist mercantilist policies also had an important and positive impact on the state that enacted them. Adam Smith himself, for instance, praised the Navigation Acts as they greatly expanded the British merchant fleet, and played a central role in turning Britain into the naval and economic superpower that it was for several centuries.^[35] Some economists thus feel that protecting infant industries, while causing short term harm, can be beneficial in the long term.

Nonetheless, The Wealth of Nations had a profound impact on the end of the mercantilist era and the later adoption of free market policy. By 1860, England removed the last vestiges of the mercantile era. Industrial regulations, monopolies and tariffs were withdrawn.^{[citation needed]}

Mercantilism today

Despite common assertions that the world system is neo liberal, many have challenged this, arguing that the current system does not represent a 'positive sum' game in which all benefit. Most of the world's population lives in countries which practice neo-mercantalism or economic nationalism. The fact that countries which practice these forms of economic policy have seen vast strides in economic development whereas those who have abandoned them have seen little to no growth is often ignored by economists who are given the most publicity and policy coordination influence. Countries which have embraced free-trade policies of Adam Smith such as the United States and the United Kingdom have seen their economic productive power cease growing in relation to mercantalist countries. Instead, neo-mercantalist note that vast debt burdens have been emplaced to support a consumption life-style which provides a venere of supremacy to the populace in the stagnate Western countries practicing free-trade. As a result, those who are critical of free-trade suggest disparities of wealth and power have been exacerbated rather than allieviated by current financial practices and institutions in the dominant financial systems which have embraced free-trade.^{[citation needed]} In response to this critique, others have attempted to blame the disparity on a form of financial mercantilism which Western free-trade countries practice. These critics often use the term 'Structural Mercantilism' ^[36] to describe the institutional and ideational structures perceived to have been built by, and in the interests of, rich countries and corporations.

References

Bibliography

• Ekelund, Robert B. (1981). Mercantilism as a Rent-Seeking Society: Economic Regulation in Historical Perspective. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 0890961204. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Ekelund, Robert B. (1975). A History of Economic Theory and Method. New York: McGraw–Hill. ISBN 0070191433. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Heckscher, Eli F. (1935). Mercantilism. London: Allen & Unwin. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
• Keynes, John Maynard (1936). "Notes on Mercantilism, the Usury Laws, Stamped Money and the Theories of Under-Consumption". The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. London: Palgrave Macmillan. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)
• Landreth, Harry (2002). History of Economic Thought (4th edition ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. ISBN 0618133941. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Letwin, William (2003) [1963]. The Origins of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought 1660–1776. London: Routledge. ISBN 0415313295.
• Magnusson, Lars G. (2003). "Mercantilism". In Biddle, Jeff E.; Davis, Jon B.; Samuels, Warren J. (ed.). A Companion to the History of Economic Thought. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 0631225730. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Niehans, Jürg (1990). A History of Economic Theory: Classic Contributions, 1720–1980. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. ISBN 0801838347. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Vaggi, Gianni (2003). A Concise History of Economic Thought: From Mercantilism to Monetarism. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 0333999363. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
• Wilson, Charles (1963) [1958]. Mercantilism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

External links

• Thomas Mun's Englands Treasure by Forraign Trade
• Book IV of The Wealth of Nations, Adam Smith's attack on the Mercantile System
• Mercantilism List of references

Template:Link FA Template:Link FA