||This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2007)|
In economics, the invisible hand of the market is a metaphor conceived by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behavior of the marketplace. The exact phrase is used just three times in Smith's writings, but has come to capture his important claim that individuals' efforts to maximize their own gains in a free market benefits society, even if the ambitious have no benevolent intentions. Smith came up with the two meanings of the phrase from Richard Cantillon who developed both economic applications in his model of the isolated estate.
He first introduced the concept in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, written in 1759. In this work, however, the idea of the market is not discussed, and the word "capitalism" is never used. By the time he wrote The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith had studied the economic models of the French Physiocrats for many years, and in this work the invisible hand is more directly linked to the concept of the market: specifically that it is competition between buyers and sellers that channels the profit motive of individuals on both sides of the transaction such that improved products are produced and at lower costs. This process whereby competition channels ambition toward socially desirable ends comes out most clearly in The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter 7.
The idea of markets automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is a central justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics. In this sense, the central disagreement between economic ideologies can be viewed as a disagreement about how powerful the "invisible hand" is. In alternative models, forces which were nascent during Smith's life, such as large-scale industry, finance, and advertising, reduce its effectiveness.
The Theory of Moral Sentiments 
The first appearance of the invisible hand in Smith occurs in The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) in Part IV, Chapter 1, where he describes a selfish landlord as being led by an invisible hand to distribute his harvest to those who work for him: "The proud and unfeeling landlord views his extensive fields, and without a thought for the wants of his brethren, in imagination consumes himself the whole harvest ... [Yet] the capacity of his stomach bears no proportion to the immensity of his desires ... the rest he will be obliged to distribute among those, who prepare, in the nicest manner, that little which he himself makes use of, among those who fit up the palace in which this little is to be consumed, among those who provide and keep in order all the different baubles and trinkets which are employed in the economy of greatness; all of whom thus derive from his luxury and caprice, that share of the necessaries of life, which they would in vain have expected from his humanity or his justice...The rich...are led by an invisible hand to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society..."
Elsewhere in The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith has described the desire of men to be respected by the members of the community in which they live, and the desire of men to feel that they are honorable beings. While Smith does not mention these social pressures in the above-cited discussion of the invisible hand, one might infer that the selfish and proud landlord hires servants in order to feel himself respected, and displays his wealth in a fine palace in order to gain the respect of others. In this sense, the invisible hand is in its first stage, a sort of system of social pressure that persuades the wealthy to do, of their own volition, what the society around them requires.
The Wealth of Nations 
The part of The Wealth of Nations (1776) which describes what future generations would consider to be Smith's invisible hand, ironically, does not use the term. The process by which market competition channels individual greed is most clearly described in Book I, Chapter 7.
Adam Smith uses the metaphor in Book IV, chapter II, paragraph IX of The Wealth of Nations. In the often misquoted and poorly understood paragraph quoted below Smith argues that a preference for the use of "domestic" industry over "foreign" industry to gain individual profit constitutes an "invisible" and benevolent hand which promotes the interests of the nation and society at large while at the same time enriching the individual. The individual may have a selfish motive but the use of domestic industry and labor enriches and promotes the interests of society as a whole.
By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was not part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good. It is an affectation, indeed, not very common among merchants, and very few words need be employed in dissuading them from it.
Economists' interpretation of the "invisible hand" quotation 
The concept of the "invisible hand" is nearly always generalized beyond Smith's original discussion of domestic versus foreign trade. Milton Friedman, a Nobel Prize winner in economics, called Smith's Invisible Hand "the possibility of cooperation without coercion." Kaushik Basu has called the First Welfare Theorem the Invisible Hand Theorem.
The theory for the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole. The reason for this is that self-interest drives actors to beneficial behavior in a case of serendipity. Efficient methods of production are adopted to maximize profits. Low prices are charged to maximize revenue through gain in market share by undercutting competitors. Investors invest in those industries most urgently needed to maximize returns, and withdraw capital from those less efficient in creating value. All these effects take place dynamically and automatically.
It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply, so entrepreneurs can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. Because they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price; further, because the new producers also become consumers, local businesses must hire more people to provide the things they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices eventually rise to the point where there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism causes the local economy to function on its own.
Some economists question the integrity of how the term "invisible hand" is currently used. Gavin Kennedy, Professor Emeritus at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh, Scotland, argues that its current use in modern economic thinking as a symbol of free market capitalism is not reconcilable with the rather modest and indeterminate manner in which it was employed by Smith. In response to Kennedy, Daniel Klein argues that reconciliation is legitimate. Moreover, even if Smith did not intend the term "invisible hand" to be used in the current manner, its serviceability as such should not be rendered ineffective. In conclusion of their exchange, Kennedy insists that Smith's intentions are of utmost importance to the current debate, which is one of Smith's association with the term "invisible hand". If the term is to be used as a symbol of liberty and economic coordination as it has been in the modern era, Kennedy argues that it should exist as a construct completely separate from Adam Smith since there is little evidence that Smith imputed any significance onto the term, much less the meanings given it at present.
The one case in which he referred to the ‘invisible hand’ was that in which private persons preferred the home trade to the foreign trade, and he held that such preference was in the national interest, since it replaced two domestic capitals while the foreign trade replaced only one. The argument of the two capitals was a bad one, since it is the amount of capital that matters, not its subdivision; but the invisible sanction was given to a Protectionist idea, not for defence but for employment. It is not surprising that Smith was often quoted in Parliament in support of Protection. His background, like ours today, was private enterprise; but any dogma of non-intervention by government has to make heavy weather in The Wealth of Nations.
Economists have taken this passage to be the first step in the cumulative effort of mainstream economics to prove that a competitive economy provides the largest possible economic pie (the so-called first welfare theorem, which demonstrates the Pareto optimality of a competitive regime). But Smith, it is evident from the context, was making a much narrower argument, namely, that the interests of businessmen in the security of their capital would lead them to invest in the domestic economy even at the sacrifice of somewhat higher returns that might be obtainable from foreign investment. . . .
David Ricardo . . . echoed Smith . . . [but] Smith's argument is at best incomplete, for it leaves out the role of foreigners' investment in the domestic economy. It would have to be shown that the gain to the British capital stock from the preference of British investors for Britain is greater than the loss to Britain from the preference of Dutch investors for the Netherlands and French investors for France."
According to Professor Emeritus William Grampp of the University of Chicago,
The invisible hand is not a power that makes the good of one the good of all, and it is not any of a number of other things it is said to be. It is simply the inducement a merchant has to keep his capital at home, thereby increasing the domestic capital stock and enhancing military power, both of which are in the public interest and neither of which he intended. Smith's exposition discloses how his rhetorical sallies could disfigure his economics, confuse his argument for free trade, and make him play fast and loose with facts and the ideas of others. . . . [T]here is little or no support in what Smith wrote that can substantiate the interpretations it has been given, thus offering another example of how the words of a great man can mean different things to his readers and can be made into something that he himself would not recognize.
According to Emma Rothschild, Smith was actually being ironic in his use of the term. Warren Samuels described it as "a means of relating modern high theory to Adam Smith and, as such, an interesting example in the development of language."
Understood as a metaphor 
Smith uses the metaphor in the context of an argument against protectionism and government regulation of markets, but it is based on very broad principles developed by Bernard Mandeville, Bishop Butler, Lord Shaftesbury, and Francis Hutcheson. In general, the term "invisible hand" can apply to any individual action that has unplanned, unintended consequences, particularly those that arise from actions not orchestrated by a central command, and that have an observable, patterned effect on the community.
Bernard Mandeville argued that private vices are actually public benefits. In The Fable of the Bees (1714), he laments that the "bees of social virtue are buzzing in Man's bonnet": that civilized man has stigmatized his private appetites and the result is the retardation of the common good.
Bishop Butler argued that pursuing the public good was the best way of advancing one's own good since the two were necessarily identical.
Lord Shaftesbury turned the convergence of public and private good around, claiming that acting in accordance with one's self-interest produces socially beneficial results. An underlying unifying force that Shaftesbury called the "Will of Nature" maintains equilibrium, congruency, and harmony. This force, to operate freely, requires the individual pursuit of rational self-interest, and the preservation and advancement of the self.
Francis Hutcheson also accepted this convergence between public and private interest, but he attributed the mechanism, not to rational self-interest, but to personal intuition, which he called a "moral sense." Smith developed his own version of this general principle in which six psychological motives combine in each individual to produce the common good. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, vol. II, page 316, he says, "By acting according to the dictates of our moral faculties, we necessarily pursue the most effective means for promoting the happiness of mankind."
Contrary to common misconceptions, Smith did not assert that all self-interested labour necessarily benefits society, or that all public goods are produced through self-interested labour. His proposal is merely that in a free market, people usually tend to produce goods desired by their neighbours. The tragedy of the commons is an example where self-interest tends to bring an unwanted result.
Moreover, a free market arguably provides numerous opportunities for maximizing one's own profit at the expense (rather than for the benefit) of others. The tobacco industry is often cited as an example of this: the sale of cigarettes and other tobacco products certainly brings a very good revenue, but the industry's critics deny that the social benefits (the pleasures associated with smoking, the camaraderie, the feeling of doing something "cool") can possibly outbalance the social costs.
Examples and arguments 
Since Smith's time, the principle of the invisible hand has been further incorporated into economic theory. Léon Walras developed a four-equation general equilibrium model that concludes that individual self-interest operating in a competitive market place produces the unique conditions under which a society's total utility is maximized. Vilfredo Pareto used an edgeworth box contact line to illustrate a similar social optimality.
Ludwig von Mises, in Human Action (see note 3 at the bottom), claims that Smith believed that the invisible hand was that of God. He did not mean this as a criticism, since he held that secular reasoning leads to similar conclusions.
The invisible hand is traditionally understood as a concept in economics, but Robert Nozick argues in Anarchy, State and Utopia that substantively the same concept exists in a number of other areas of academic discourse under different names, notably Darwinian natural selection. In turn, Daniel Dennett argues in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that this represents a "universal acid" that may be applied to a number of seemingly disparate areas of philosophical inquiry (consciousness and free will in particular). See also Social Darwinism.
Tawney's interpretation 
If preachers have not yet overtly identified themselves with the view of the natural man, expressed by an eighteenth-century writer in the words, trade is one thing and religion is another, they imply a not very different conclusion by their silence as to the possibility of collisions between them. The characteristic doctrine was one, in fact, which left little room for religious teaching as to economic morality, because it anticipated the theory, later epitomized by Adam Smith in his famous reference to the invisible hand, which saw in economic self-interest the operation of a providential plan... The existing order, except insofar as the short-sighted enactments of Governments interfered with it, was the natural order, and the order established by nature was the order established by God. Most educated men, in the middle of the [eighteenth] century, would have found their philosophy expressed in the lines of Pope:
Naturally, again, such an attitude precluded a critical examination of institutions, and left as the sphere of Christian charity only those parts of life that could be reserved for philanthropy, precisely because they fell outside that larger area of normal human relations, in which the promptings of self-interest provided an all-sufficient motive and rule of conduct. (Religion and the Rise of Capitalism, pp. 191–192.)
- Thus God and Nature formed the general frame,
- And bade self-love and social be the same.
Home bias interpretation 
Noam Chomsky argues that Smith (and more specifically David Ricardo) used the phrase to mean a "home bias" for investing domestically in opposition to outsourcing production and neoliberalism. In this interpretation, Smith meant that merchants in the act of "preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry" as if "led by an invisible hand", benefited society.
The implications are that Smith saw outsourcing and neoliberalism as damaging to society and "the invisible hand" helped steer society away from these things. However, even in this view Smith's objection is on practical grounds and outsourcing would still be allowed in a market system.
Other uses of the phrase by Smith 
Only in The History of Astronomy (written before 1758) Smith speaks of the invisible hand, to which ignorants refer to explain natural phenomena otherwise unexplainable:
"Fire burns, and water refreshes; heavy bodies descend, and lighter substances fly upwards, by the necessity of their own nature; nor was the invisible hand of Jupiter ever apprehended to be employed in those matters."
In The Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759) and in The Wealth of Nations (1776) Adam Smith speaks of an invisible hand, never of the invisible hand. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith uses the concept to sustain a "trickling down" theory, a concept also used in neoclassical development theory: The gluttony of the rich serves to feed the poor.
The rich … consume little more than the poor, and in spite of their natural selfishness and rapacity, though they mean only their own conveniency, though the sole end which they propose from the labours of all the thousands whom they employ, be the gratification of their own vain and insatiable desires, they divide with the poor the produce of all their improvements. They are led by an invisible hand [emphasis added] to make nearly the same distribution of the necessaries of life, which would have been made, had the earth been divided into equal portions among all its inhabitants, and thus without intending it, without knowing it, advance the interest of the society, and afford means to the multiplication of the species. When Providence divided the earth among a few lordly masters, it neither forgot nor abandoned those who seemed to have been left out in the partition. These last too enjoy their share of all that it produces. In what constitutes the real happiness of human life, they are in no respect inferior to those who would seem so much above them. In ease of body and peace of mind, all the different ranks of life are nearly upon a level, and the beggar, who suns himself by the side of the highway, possesses that security which kings are fighting for (emphasis added).
Smith's visit to France and his acquaintance to the French Économistes (known as Physiocrats) changed his views from micro-economic optimisation to macro-economic growth as the end of Political Economy. So the invisible hand in The Theory of Moral Sentiments is denounced in the Wealth of Nations as unproductive labour. Walker, the first president (1885 to 92) of the American Economic Association, concurred:
The domestic servant … is not employed as a means to his master's profit. His master's income is not due in any part to his employment; on the contrary, that income is first acquired … and in the amount of the income is determined whether the servant shall be employed or not, while to the full extent of that employment the income is diminished. As Adam Smith expresses it "a man grows rich by employing a multitude of manufacturers; he grows poor by maintaining a multitude of menial servants."
Smith's theoretical U-turn from a micro-economical to a macro-economical view is not reflected in The Wealth of Nations. Large parts of this book are retaken from Smith's lectures before his visit to France. So one must distinguish in The Wealth of Nations a micro-economical and a macro-economical Adam Smith. Whether Smith's quotation of an invisible hand in the middle of his work is a micro-economical statement or a macro-economical statement condemning monopolies and government interferences as in the case of tariffs and patents is debatable.
Abusing Smith's statement of an invisible hand 
That part of Smith's The Wealth of Nations that belongs to his views prior to his acquaintance to the French Économistes (Physiocrats) can rightly be claimed by neo-classical economists as their forerunner. The earlier Smith and his teacher Hutcheson belong to a micro-economic strain in line with Aristotle and Puffendorf. An agonising neoclassical theory had been reanimated in the 30th [?] in Chicago against dominant Institutional economics, so claims to be the heirs of Adam Smith are partially justified. In this line of reading Smith, already Samuelson indicates that Smith should be an American citizen:
And at the bicentennial celebration of The Wealth of Nations 1976 at Glasgow University, Stigler (from Chicago) was happy to declare: "I bring you greetings from Adam Smith who is alive and well and living in Chicago".
But this equation of Smith's invisible hand statement and the American-led neoclassical General equilibrium theory is obtained only by curtailing Smith. An example is Paul Samuelson's Economics – published since 1948 with over 4 million copies. It mentions Smith's invisible hand seven times. But the use Samuelson makes of Smith's invisible hand is stated best by comparing Smith's text with how it is cited in excerpts by Samuelson (Smith's text, with Samuelson's selections in bold):
"As every individual … therefore, endeavours as much as he can, both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce maybe of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the general [Smith said "public" not general] interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security, and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain; and he is in this, [as in many other cases] led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest, he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.
Smith nowhere wrote about "the invisible hand of the market" as is commonly assumed. He just used the phrase "invisible hand". Furthermore, the qualifier, "By preferring the support of domestic to that of a foreign industry", is not quoted when referring to the "invisible hand" sentence.
Joseph E. Stiglitz 
Adam Smith, the father of modern economics, is often cited as arguing for the "invisible hand" and free markets: firms, in the pursuit of profits, are led, as if by an invisible hand, to do what is best for the world. But unlike his followers, Adam Smith was aware of some of the limitations of free markets, and research since then has further clarified why free markets, by themselves, often do not lead to what is best. As I put it in my new book, Making Globalization Work, the reason that the invisible hand often seems invisible is that it is often not there. Whenever there are "externalities"—where the actions of an individual have impacts on others for which they do not pay, or for which they are not compensated—markets will not work well. Some of the important instances have long understood environmental externalities. Markets, by themselves, produce too much pollution. Markets, by themselves, also produce too little basic research. (The government was responsible for financing most of the important scientific breakthroughs, including the internet and the first telegraph line, and many bio-tech advances.) But recent research has shown that these externalities are pervasive, whenever there is imperfect information or imperfect risk markets—that is always. Government plays an important role in banking and securities regulation, and a host of other areas: some regulation is required to make markets work. Government is needed, almost all would agree, at a minimum to enforce contracts and property rights. The real debate today is about finding the right balance between the market and government (and the third "sector" – governmental non-profit organizations.) Both are needed. They can each complement each other. This balance differs from time to time and place to place.
Noam Chomsky 
Noam Chomsky, while acknowledging the intelligence of Smith's thesis, criticizes how the term of the "invisible hand" has been used. He also explains:
Throughout history, Adam Smith observed, we find the workings of "the vile maxim of the masters of mankind": "All for ourselves, and nothing for other People." He had few illusions about the consequences. The invisible hand, he wrote, destroys the possibility of a decent human existence "unless government takes pains to prevent" this outcome, as must be assured in "every improved and civilized society." It destroys community, the environment, and human values generally—and even the masters themselves, which is why the business classes have regularly called for state intervention to protect them from market forces. (...)
Rather interestingly these issues were foreseen by the great founders of modern economics, Adam Smith for example. He recognized and discussed what would happen to Britain if the masters adhered to the rules of sound economics – what's now called neoliberalism. He warned that if British manufacturers, merchants, and investors turned abroad, they might profit but England would suffer. However, he felt that this wouldn't happen because the masters would be guided by a home bias. So as if by an invisible hand England would be spared the ravages of economic rationality. That passage is pretty hard to miss. It's the only occurrence of the famous phrase "invisible hand" in Wealth of Nations, namely in a critique of what we call neoliberalism.
Stephen LeRoy 
Stephen LeRoy, professor emeritus at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, offered a critique of the Invisible Hand:
The single most important proposition in economic theory, first stated by Adam Smith, is that competitive markets do a good job allocating resources. (...) The financial crisis has spurred a debate about the proper balance between markets and government and prompted some scholars to question whether the conditions assumed by Smith...are accurate for modern economies.
Among the conditions that were assumed, and which have since fallen into question, are that information asymmetries, incentive distortions, and the failure of government regulators to serve as a check.
See also 
- Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal by Ayn Rand
- Essays on Philosophical Subjects by Adam Smith
- I, Pencil by Leonard Read
- The National Gain by Anders Chydenius
- The Theory of Moral Sentiments by Adam Smith
- The Visible Hand by Alfred Chandler
- The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith
- Enlightened self-interest
- Free price system
- Market fundamentalism
- Opportunity cost
- Partial knowledge
- Philosophy of social science
- Rational egoism
- Spontaneous order
- Sullivan, Arthur; Steven M. Sheffrin (2003). Economics: Principles in action. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458: Pearson Prentice Hall. p. 32. ISBN 0-13-063085-3.
- Thornton, Mark. Cantillon and the Invisible Hand. Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, http://mises.org/journals/qjae/pdf/qjae12_2_3.pdf Vol. 12, No. 2 (2009) pp. 27–46.
- Sen, Amartya. Introduction. The Theory of Moral Sentiments. By Adam Smith. 6th ed. 1790. New York: Penguin, 2009. vii–xxix.
- Olsen, James Stewart. Encyclopedia of the Industrial Revolution. Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002. pp. 153–154
- [http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl0.html#Introduction,%20by%20Milton%20Friedman Friedman's Introduction to I, Pencil
- Basu 2010, p. 16.
- Kennedy, Gavin. 2009. Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand: From Metaphor to Myth. Econ Journal Watch 6(2): 239–263.
- Klein, Daniel B. 2009. In "Adam Smith's Invisible Hands: Comment on Gavin Kennedy". Econ Journal Watch 6(2): 264–279.
- Kennedy, Gavin. "A Reply to Daniel Klein on Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand". Econ Journal Watch 6(3): 374–388.
- D. H. MacGregor, Economic Thought and Policy (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), pp. 81–82.
- Marglin, Stephen (2008). The Dismal Science: How Thinking Like an Economist Undermines Community. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. p. 99 n.1. ISBN 978-0-674-02654-4.
- Grampp, William D. (2000). "What Did Smith Mean by the Invisible Hand?". Journal of Political Economy 108 (3): 441–465. JSTOR 262125.
- Rothschild, Emma (2001). Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. pp. 138–42. ISBN 978-0-674-00489-4.
- Samuels 2011, p. xviii.
- except from documentary "American Feud"
- "American Decline: Causes and Consequences" Noam Chomsky
- Smith, A., 1980, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vol., Oxford University Press, vol. III, p. 49
- Smith, A., 1976, The Theory of Moral Sentiments, vol. 1, p. 184 in: The Glasgow Edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith, 7 vol., Oxford University Press
- Walker, A., 1875, The Wage Question, N:Y: Henry Holt, p. 215
- "The learned will at once discern how much … is taken from the writings of others, from Cicero and Aristotle, and to name no other moderns, from Puffendorf's … de officio hominis et civis" (Hutcheson, F., 1787, "A Short Introduction to Moral Philosophy", Dublin: McKenzie, p. vii.). In "System" (1755) Hutcheson's begins stating: "The intention of moral philosophy is to direct men to that course of action which tends most effectually to promote their greatest happiness and perfection." (Hutcheson, F., 1755, "A system of moral philosophy", Glasgow: Foulis). And in "Inquiry" Hutcheson (1729, 180) explains: "That action is best, which procures the greatest Happiness for the greatest Numbers" (Hutcheson, F., 1729, "An inquiry into the original of our ideas of beauty and virtue", London).
- Samuelson, Paul A./Nordhaus, William D., 1989, Economics, 13th edition, N.Y. et al.: McGraw-Hill, p. 825.
- Meek, R., 1977, Smith, Marx, and after, London: Beccles & Clochester, p. 3
- Smith, A. 1982, The Glasgow edition of the Works and Correspondence of Adam Smith,, Oxford University Press. vol.2a, p. 456. .
- The Roaring Nineties, 2006
- ALTMAN, Daniel. Managing Globalization. In: Q & Answers with Joseph E. Stiglitz, Columbia University and The International Herald Tribune, October 11, 2006 05:03AM.
- Basu, Kaushik (2010). Beyond the Invisible Hand: Groundwork for a New Economics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. ISBN 978-0-691-13716-2.
- Samuels, Warren J., ed. (2011). Erasing the Invisible Hand: Essays on an Elusive and Misused Concept in Economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-51725-6.
- The Theory of Moral Sentiments (full text)
- The Wealth of Nations (full text) or
- The History of Astronomy, in Essays on Philosophical Subjects (full text)
- I, Pencil (full text)
- The National Gain (full text)
- PDF (70.7 KiB)
- "Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand" From Metaphor to Myth" article by Gavin Kennedy, May 2009