Adam Smith and Neo - Plagiarism : A Reply

In describing Adam Smith's acknowledgments as "neo-plagiarism" (Rashid, 1990), was trying to characterize a situation where a scholar either borrows ideas from others but provides no acknowledgment, or had access to fruitful and important ideas yet seems to have ignored them. These can be two quite different issues, and I am indeed guilty of inadequately distinguishing between them. A scholar who commits either error is d i s h e d in staturebut in very different ways. Failure to acknowledge diminishes the man but does not hurt the theory, while a reluctance to meet the opposition head-on suggests both a weakness of argument as well as an inability to face unpleasant truths. Adam Smith used the memorable words about self-interest: "mt [the desire of bettering our condition] comes with us from the womb and never leaves us till we go into the grave." If Smith is right, the irresistible long-run victory of self-interest should also show itself in his own case. Why can we not apply the ordinary standards of self-seeking behavior that economists have applied ad nauseam to marriage, divorce, crime, and the like, to a person's desire for fame? After all, Smith's own career shows indifference to neither wealth nor position. James Ahiakpor's (1992) request for evidence has a tongue-in-cheek air to it, as is evident from his first paragraph where he ends his request with the qualifier "if he [Rashid] indeed has such evidence" (p. 171). Ahiakpor's comments reflect a much wider-indeed, the generally prevalent-attitude toward Adam Smith and the Wealth ofNations. Almost everything I thought to be of significance, he has passed over. The points he has chosen not to challenge are of far greater importance than the issues Ahiakpor raises. Let me first deal briefly with the general inadequacies of Smith scholarship,