The History of the Economic Thought of the Netherlanders
The History of the Economic Thought of the Netherlanders and their Literature during the Time of the Republic is arguably Laspeyres' main contribution to economic literature. The work covers the economic literature and history of ideas of the Netherlands from 1600 to 1785, i.e.
the time of the greatest extension of Dutch economic and political power, as well as the time of its decline.A special feature, which was criticized when the book appeared (Vissering 1863, pp. 736-8), is the use, recommended by Roscher (Laspeyres 1863, p. ix), not only of the scholarly but also of the popular and incidental economic literature, such as broadsheets and pamphlets, in which Laspeyres locates the actual strength of Dutch economic theory. This kind of literature had hitherto been unknown, or unused, even in the Netherlands itself (Vissering 1863, pp. 734-5; De Bosch Kemper 1863, pp. 278, 282). Laspeyres' style is colourful and judging, comparable to Karl Bucher or more recently David Landes, and thus, in spite of the generally dry topic, is very readable. Today, especially as a bibliographical guide to its topic, the History is still not superseded. Outstanding in two meanings of the word (unusual and excellent) is the History's interweaving of the history of economics and of economic history, partially by way of the use of incidental economic literature. That, together with Laspeyres' decidedly realist - yet not cynical - general attitude, already forms some sort of law and economics framework.
At least in this period of his life, Laspeyres was an avowed, almost militant Smithian who measured all earlier theorists against how similar they are to the ‘great Scot' (Laspeyres 1863, passim; cf. 1865a; for more moderate later views, see 1875, pp. 6-7). However, his subject and especially his method lead, or almost force, Laspeyres in the end to more or less categorize free trade not as right or wrong as such, but as a figure of argumentation, the use of which - just as that of protectionism - primarily stems from the respective interest of the discussants and the respective circumstances. Thus, neither free trade nor protectionism can be either good or bad for every country and/ or every point in time; rather, they are fully context-dependent (see Laspeyres 1863, pp.
87-8, 134-6, 160-62). As an example, high prices are generally bad policy for the country as such (rather than for special interests; a continuous differentiation in Laspeyres, who has a very keen cui bono sense in economic policy):In the Netherlands, however, high prices were, for special reasons, more easily defensible than in other countries. The small nation was almost throughout producing, and in fact for other countries, from which it was separated by a great advantage in trade and industry. All its inhabitants could see... themselves as producers; thus, the entire surplus of the high prices for the products sold to other countries was to their benefit. (1863, pp. 87-8)
This is similar to, but a further and qualitatively significant development of, Roscher’s thesis regarding protectionism, which already counters Smith’s, and which is seen as one of Roscher’s key law and economics insights (see Streissler on Roscher, Chapter 5 this volume). Another, more concrete example of a law and economics approach in Laspeyres is his summation of what made the Netherlands and their trade so prosperous during their time of flourish. Here, we find - among more traditional items - such reasons as
i) a good justice system, protecting gains ‘against the desires of one’s fellow citizens’,
ii) harsh penalties for criminal bankruptcy,
iii) good insurance companies, distributing risk more evenly, and
iv) contract culture based on a strong pacta sunt servanda ethos, which makes small investments into incorporated companies possible and therefore utilizes all the capital available for trade financing. (Laspeyres 1863, pp. 120-23)