Content area
Full Text
Henry Carey was the most important American economist of the middle part of the 19th century. Although he lacked an academic following in the United States, he was influential in Europe. In the course of denouncing British trade policy and British political economy, Carey developed an ecological-economic analysis that prefigures much modern thought. Carey began with the dangers of soil depletion and developed a dynamic theory of value based on the cost of reproduction. He called for a development strategy based on the complete, local recycling of all goods, including even waste products from both animate and inanimate sources. This article details the strengths and shortcomings of Carey's work. Although Carey was quite conservative and trusted in markets, his theories point in the direction of a radical ecological-economic program.
Although Henry Carey (1793-1879) is an important, although ambiguous, forerunner of modern ecological economics, he is largely forgotten today. Many economists might breath a sigh of relief and say, "Yes, for good reason." If nothing else, Carey generally aroused strong feelings among economists, especially English economists who dominated the profession. John Stuart Mill and Alfred Marshall were openly contemptuous of his work. According to Schumpeter (1954), "Carey's theory was no good at all.... He made negative contributions to analysis" (p. 517). Even within the United States, Carey found virtually no support in the academic community.
Yet, as we shall see, Carey still has a vital message for our own times. In this article, I will trace the unlikely route by which Carey's narrow-minded objectives led him to become one of the pioneers of environmental economics. I will begin with a brief discussion of his background and personal biases.
At first glance, a quick consideration of Carey's goals might lead a reader to conclude that Carey has little to offer to progressives who are concerned about sustainable societies. I can assure readers that they will do well to set aside such conclusions, ignore the obvious limits of Carey, the man, and carefully consider the implications of his theoretical approach.
For now, let us regard the verdict of Karl Marx. Although Marx detested Carey's reactionary politics and had good reason to believe that Carey cost him his most lucrative job (see Perelman, 1987, p. 24), and although...