Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T06:02:54.283Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Note on Locke's “The Great Art of Government”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Edward Andrew
Edward Andrew*
Affiliation:
University of Toronto
*
Edward Andrew, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, 100 St. George St., Toronto, Ontario, CanadaM5S 3G3; [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. This note explores the ambiguity in John Locke's assertion that “the great art of government” consists in the increase and right employment of “lands” or “hands.” The dominant interpretation is that Locke thought governmental practice should aim at the extension and proper cultivation of land, while others assert that, given the context of the labour theory of value and Locke's concern to increase population, a more suitable interpretation is that the great art of government consists in the maximal exploitation of “hands” or labourers. The case for both “lands” and “hands” is examined within the scholarly literature on Locke's egalitarianism and political economy, an argument for the minority favouring of “hands” over “lands” provided and its contemporary relevance explained.

Résumé. Cette note analyse l'ambiguïté de l'assertion de John Locke selon laquelle «le grand art du gouvernement» consiste dans l'accroissement et l'exploitation convenable des terres («lands») ou de la main-d'oeuvre («hands»). L'interprétation dominante est que Locke pensait que la sage administration avait pour but la meilleure culture des terres («lands»), mais quelques savants lockiens, invoquant la théorie de Locke que toute valeur est le produit du travail et son intérêt pour la croissance de la population, privilégient plutôt une interprétation centrée sur l'exploitation de la main-d'oeuvre («hands»). L'auteur explore les deux optiques dans la littérature érudite sur l'égalité et l'économie politique de Locke, puis présente un raisonnement sur l'interprétation minoritaire centrée sur la main-d'oeuvre et en explique la pertinence dans le monde contemporain.

Type
Research Notes
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 42 , Issue 2 , June 2009 , pp. 511 - 519
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Armitage, David. 2000. The Ideological Origins of the British Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arneil, Barbara. 1996. John Locke and America: The Defence of English Colonialism. Oxford: Clarendon.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashcraft, Richard. 1986. Revolutionary Politics and Locke's Two Treatises of Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bloom, Allan. 1975. “Justice: John Rawls and the Tradition of Political Philosophy.” American Political Science Review 69: 648–62.Google Scholar
Comia, Giovanni Andria. 1985. “Farm Size, Land Yields and the Agricultural Production Function: An Analysis for Fifteen Developing Countries.” World Development 13 (4): 513–34.Google Scholar
Cox, Richard. 1960. Locke on War and Peace. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Fan, Senggen and Chan-Kang, Connie. 2005. “Is Small Beautiful? Farm Size, Productivity and Poverty in Asian Agriculture.” Agricultural Economics 32 (1): 135–46.Google Scholar
Goldie, Mark, ed. 1993. Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke (1689). London: Everyman.Google Scholar
Gough, John W., ed. 1966. Commentary. The Second Treatise of Government and A Letter Concerning Toleration, by John Locke (1689). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Grant, George P. 1985. English-Speaking Justice. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press.Google Scholar
Hamilton, Alexander, Jay, John and Madison, James 1788. The Federalist, ed. Cooke, Jacob E.. New York: Meridian, 1965.Google Scholar
Josephson, Peter. 2002. The Great Art of Government: Locke's Use of Consent. Lawrence KS: University of Kansas Press.Google Scholar
Kant, Immanuel. 1995. Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Laslett, Peter, 1963. Commentary. Two Treatises on Government, by John Locke (1689). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Locke, John. 1794. Works. 9th ed.London: Longman.Google Scholar
Macpherson, C.B. 1962. The Political Theory of Possessive Individualism: Hobbes to Locke. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
McNally, David. 1989. “Locke, Levellers, and Liberty: Property and Democracy in the Thought of the First Whigs.” History of Political Thought 10: 17–40.Google Scholar
Rawls, John. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge MA: Belnap Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1962. “An Aspect of Indian Agriculture.” Economic Weekly 14: 243–46.Google Scholar
Sen, Amartya. 1982. Poverty and Famine: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Signmund, Paul E., ed. 2005. The Selected Political Writings of John Locke: Texts, Background Selections, Sources, Interpretations. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Tully, James. 1993. An Approach to Political Philosophy: Locke in Contexts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. 2002. God, Locke and Equality: Christian Foundations of John Locke's Political Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wood, Neal. 1984. John Locke and Agrarian Capitalism. Berkeley CA: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wootton, David, ed. 1993. John Locke: Political Writings. Harmondsworth: Penguin.Google Scholar