{"id":12403,"date":"2020-03-06T18:12:30","date_gmt":"2020-03-06T17:12:30","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/?p=12403"},"modified":"2023-08-07T17:27:09","modified_gmt":"2023-08-07T15:27:09","slug":"ubiquitous-yet-nowhere-to-be-found-on-the-invisible-hands-success","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/cognitionandculture.local\/blogs\/helena-miton\/ubiquitous-yet-nowhere-to-be-found-on-the-invisible-hands-success\/","title":{"rendered":"Ubiquitous yet nowhere to be found: on the Invisible Hand\u2019s success"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
Adam Smith\u2019s invisible hand<\/em> is a tremendously successful metaphor. Quotes abound to state how important and pervasive the idea is (and was) for both economics and social sciences at large. Yet, the invisible hand also happens to also be a remarkably ill-defined metaphor. It seems nearly impossible to find an agreement through the literature as to what the metaphor is, exactly, or which phenomena would count as occurrences of the invisible hand. I want to suggest that the lack of a precise definition was not a problem, but the precise reason why it got so successful: it offered a versatile label that could be used to refer to causal links across scales of analysis, while avoiding to commit to any more precise mechanistic explanation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The invisible hand metaphor\u2019s success is especially intriguing when considering how (parsimoniously) it was used by Adam Smith. It appeared in only twice in relation to economic phenomena in his works (three times in total, the last one relates to astronomy). In the Wealth of Nations<\/em>, the invisible hand appears in the context of describing how the preference of a merchant to keep his wealth in his home country contributes to the greater good. In the Theory of Moral Sentiments<\/em>, the metaphor seems to relate to the \u2018equal\u2019 repartition of resources results from the landlord being unable to consume the totality of what is produced on his land. There have been numerous attempts to pinpoint what was meant by Adam Smith\u2019s uses of the invisible hand. Several authors (Kennedy, 2009; Grampp, 2000) also concur on the idea that the invisible hand was used by Adam Smith essentially as a rhetorical<\/em> device, and did not imply a justificatory dimension. <\/p>\n\n\n