Samuel Hollander provides the first in-depth study of Malthus's achievement as an economist. Malthus's message has been largely misrepresented by decades of careless and biased interpretation. In this volume, Samuel Hollander re-examines these interpretations and presents a full and coherent picture of Malthus's economics. He evaluates John Maynard Keynes's famous dichotomy between the Ricardian and Malthusian methods, proving that the two were far closer to each other than is generally supposed. The relation of Malthus's ideas to those of his predecessors is thoroughly examined, for example, his roots in the Wealth of Nations are demonstrated and the physiocratic and Sraffian dimensions of his work are brought to light. Hollander extends his analysis to biographical factors; he discounts the textbook perspective on Malthus as a social-welfare pessimist and dispels the common notion of Malthus as spokesman of the land-owning classes. The standard charges against Malthus of inconsistency and intellectual dishonesty are also challenged.

Samuel Hollander has produced the definitive study of Thomas Robert Malthus. A major contribution to the history of economic theory, the study has much broader appeal as a portrait of a central figure in early nineteenth-century debates over social policy -particularly those having to do with the role of government in relation to social welfare, economic growth, and trade protection.

SAMUEL HOLLANDER was appointed Professor in 1970 and University Professor in 1984 in the Department of Economics at the University of Toronto. Amother his other books are The Economics of John Stuart Mill(1985), The Economics of David Ricardo(1979), and The Economics of Adam Smith (1973), all published by University of Toronto Press. He is a Professor Emeritus at Ben-Gurion University.

Samuel Hollander's profile page

'Formidable in its mastery of detail and always taking stock of Malthus' contribution, the book takes its place alongside Hollander's previous works as an indispensable source for understanding classical political economy.' -- John B. Davis

Population and Development Review