Adam Smith and the 250th anniversary of "The Wealth of Nations"

Since its publication, Adam Smith’s The Wealth of Nations has faced sustained political critique, particularly regarding its assumptions about free markets, the role of government intervention, and the implications of laissez-faire policies. Central to these debates are Smith’s treatment of special interests and monopolies, as well as persistent misreadings of his views on government non-intervention. While Smith criticized trade guilds, monopolies, and other politically aligned groups for manipulating governments to secure laws serving private interests over the public good, critics contend that he underestimated the enduring influence of such groups. This concern remains especially relevant in modern debates on capitalism and political lobbying.

Another frequent critique involves the mischaracterization of Smith as an unqualified champion of laissez-faire. In fact, Smith explicitly warned against the dangers of unchecked business interests and the moral and social costs of concentrated market power. Although he favored limited state interference, he nevertheless recognized the necessity of government in providing public goods, ensuring justice, maintaining defense, and supporting education.

Smith’s attack on mercantilism also attracted criticism. He opposed protectionist policies and government-managed trade in favor of free trade, yet critics argue that his stance overlooked legitimate reasons for state intervention—such as protecting strategic industries or fostering economic development. By dismissing these considerations, they claim, Smith’s framework risked weakening state power and leaving national industries vulnerable in pursuit of abstract economic liberty.

Labor conditions formed another area of concern. Smith acknowledged the intellectual degradation caused by excessive division of labor but devoted little attention to the broader social and political consequences for workers. Later critics judged this omission as a political shortcoming, since economic arrangements inevitably shape social hierarchies and political relationships as well as material production.

Analytical tensions within Smith’s text have also been highlighted. For example, scholars point to the contradiction between his celebration of productivity gains from the division of labor (illustrated by the “pin factory”) and his reliance on the “invisible hand” to describe market equilibrium. These unresolved tensions complicate the political significance of Smith’s arguments, particularly when applied to modern issues of market failure and inequality.

Feminist critiques add another dimension. They challenge the male-centered assumptions of The Wealth of Nations, noting how its framework reflects patriarchal structures that undervalue or exclude women’s contributions—especially in unpaid domestic and care work. Smith’s acceptance of a gendered division of labor reinforced traditional hierarchies without questioning their social or political implications. Contemporary feminist economists emphasize how economic models based on public/private and paid/unpaid distinctions perpetuate women’s invisibility and disempowerment. They also critique Smith’s portrayal of “rational economic actors” for ignoring the role of power, gender, race, and class in shaping access to resources. From this perspective, feminist political economy advocates policies that prioritize intersectionality, collective responsibility, empowerment, and gender justice, moving beyond purely market-based solutions.

Finally, ethical critiques of Smith’s work often focus on the “invisible hand.” While the metaphor appeared in both The Wealth of Nations and The Theory of Moral Sentiments within a broader moral and social context, later interpretations stripped it of its ethical foundation. 

To mark the 250th anniversary of this seminal publication, this Collection is dedicated to reassessing Smith’s intellectual legacy and the continuing relevance of his ideas. This Collection aims to provide a forum for rigorous scholarly reflection on the historical, philosophical, and theoretical dimensions of Smith’s writings, as well as on their subsequent reception and reinterpretation across disciplines. 

We welcome contributions that may address, but are not limited to, the following themes:

• Reconsiderations of the intellectual structure, arguments, and methodological innovations of The Wealth of Nations.
• The relationship between Smith’s economic analysis and his moral philosophy in The Theory of Moral Sentiments.
• Smith’s position within the Scottish Enlightenment and in relation to contemporaneous thinkers in Europe and beyond.
• Interpretations of Smith’s views on commerce, labor, trade, taxation, and the role of the state.
• The global circulation and reception of Smith’s ideas across intellectual and political traditions (e.g. conservatism, liberalism, libertarianism, socialism, and Marxism).
• Smith’s work in the history of political economy, jurisprudence, and social theory.
• The ethical and normative implications of Smith’s conception of markets and economic life.
• The contemporary significance of Smith’s thought for debates in economics, political theory, and public policy.
• Contemporary Challenges such as Climate Change and Artificial Intelligence in the Light of Adam Smith’s Thought.

The Collection welcomes submissions from scholars around the globe, including Africa, Asia, Latin America, the United States, Australia/New Zealand, and Europe. Submissions are also open to scholars from a wide range of disciplines, including the humanities, social, natural and applied sciences, that address questions related to the above themes, and provide advice on policymaking proximate.