Progress and Poverty - Classic Text | Alexandria
Progress and Poverty, a treatise by Henry George published in 1879, stands as both an economic inquiry and a moral indictment of the widening gulf between affluence and destitution. Is it merely a relic of the Gilded Age, or does George’s singular tax proposal—the single tax on land—still hold relevance in our era of unprecedented inequality?
George's inquiry into the paradox of advancing civilization coupled with persistent poverty traces back to his observations in burgeoning California during the 1870s. While not the first to identify the problem, George synthesized classical economics, moral philosophy, and personal experience. His insights, fueled by exposure to the stark contrasts of wealth and poverty in rapidly developing economies, reflected anxieties of an era defined by industrial expansion and social upheaval. The work quickly gained traction, sparking debate.
Progress and Poverty became a cornerstone of the land reform movement, influencing figures ranging from Leo Tolstoy to Sun Yat-sen. Its arguments resonated with socialists, liberals, and even conservatives concerned about the concentration of wealth and its potential to destabilize society. George's theory posited that the private ownership of land allowed landowners to reap unearned profits from the community's growth, effectively holding society ransom. His proposed solution—a single tax on the unimproved value of land—aimed to redistribute this unearned increment, financing public services and abolishing other taxes. The book spurred the formation of single-tax leagues worldwide and propelled George into political prominence, culminating in his near-win in the 1886 New York mayoral election.
Progress and Poverty continues to provoke discussion among economists and social reformers. While the single tax has never been implemented on a large scale, variations have been adopted in various contexts. George's ideas find echoes in contemporary debates about land value capture, speculation, and equitable distribution of resources. Does George's focus on land as the primary source of inequality still accurately reflect the complexities of modern economies? Perhaps a deeper investigation into George's life and theories can offer important guidance for promoting economic fairness.