<h2>tl;dr</h2>
<p>Your description of an invisible hand is a straw man, and academic literature typically avoids straw man ideas.</p>
<p>When it comes to proper non-strawman version of the invisible hand argument there are several interpretations of the invisible hand in the literature as describing:</p>
<ol>
<li>First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics. For derivation and description of the  <a href="https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/mon/m12-all.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arrow (1951)</a> and Debreu (1951)</li>
<li>Spontaneous beneficial order that is a result of unintended individual action - this is covered by cornucopia of various models that have this property. Even Ricardian model of trade would technically apply.</li>
<li>There could be other interpretations such as just making relatively vague argument that the economic growth raises income of the poor/economics is generally not zero-sum game.</li>
</ol>
<h2>Full Answer</h2>
<p><strong>Correction of misconceptions in the question:</strong></p>
<p>Let me start by correcting some misconceptions</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting selfishly will make choices that benefit others.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>That is not an expression of invisible hand idea, it is a straw man of invisible hand. Academic literature, at least the high quality portion of it, does not examine straw men of ideas (e.g. you would not expect serious climate paper to address straw men like &quot;if there is a climate change how is it possible there is a snow in a winter?&quot;).</p>
<p>First, Adam Smith used the metaphor <em>invisible hand</em> very sparingly, only 3 times in the whole corpus of his writing and only once in <em>Wealth of Nations</em> (WoN), which is the most relevant, where he states that:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. 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 public 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.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Adam Smith never mentions selfishness here (nor self-interest), but person's own gain, i.e. in modern lingo that person is trying to maximize their own utility. What everyone's greatest gain is depends on their preferences and pursuing charitable activity fully qualifies.</p>
<p>Adam Smith does say <em>also</em> say in other passages of WoN that purely selfish activity can increase public welfare, but in those passages he does it to emphasize that that his claim does hold even if people would be selfish. No fair interpretation of Smith would say that he stated that it is selfish action in particular, that is required here. Rather, any pursuit of one's self-interest (greatest value judged by one's own preferences) would qualify whether it is one that is selfish or not.</p>
<p>Second, Adam Smith never referred to competitive markets (the notion of perfect competition did not even exist at the time of Smith's writing).  Adam Smith referred to free market, which is not the same as competitive market. Perfect competition was first developed by Cournot in 1838.</p>
<p>Third, Adam Smith does not make a claim that this <em>necessarily</em> increases welfare of others (there are other passages where he says it often does). In fact, Smith clearly states that because:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry ...  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</p>
</blockquote>
<p>In essence, Smith simply states here that the welfare/revenue of society is sum of individual welfare/revenue, that is <span class="math-container">$W = \sum_i w_i$</span>, and thus if you maximize your own welfare you will contribute to the maximization of public welfare as well. But there is no requirement for your welfare improvements to also help others (although it could). For example, if one person gains but no-one else looses anything that counts as well as situations where one person gains, but other gain as a result as well.</p>
<p><strong>Research Relating to Invisible Hand</strong></p>
<p>The style of 18<span class="math-container">$^{\text{th}}$</span> century academic writing was less precise than we use at the present, and Adam Smith used the phrase &quot;invisible hand&quot; only 2 times in all of his published works, and 3 times if we count all of his unpublished works (Blaug 2008). Hence, there is a bit of ambiguity in the meaning of the term, but we can certainly exclude straw man interpretations such as made in the question.</p>
<p>Next, the following few interpretations are the ones that are most widely accepted are:</p>
<ol>
<li>Adam Smith was implicitly describing the first fundamental welfare theorem. This is the claim made by <a href="https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300476265" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arrow and Hahn (1971)</a> and MasColell et al. (1995) Microeconomic Theory (pp. 308, 327, 524, 545, 549).</li>
</ol>
<p>You can see the original work on first fundamental theorems of welfare economics in <a href="https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/mon/m12-all.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Arrow (1951)</a> and Debreu (1951).</p>
<p>The above interpretation is popular but a criticism of this interpretation is that it seems to read too much into Smith's work. The first fundamental theorem of welfare economics requires perfect markets, no externalities and other assumptions that Smith was never <em>explicitly</em> discussing (see Berg 2008). Thus some economic historians would rather say that Smith was not describing fundamental welfare theorem.</p>
<ol start="2">
<li>According to Vaughn (1987) and Hayek (1973), Adam Smith was describing</li>
</ol>
<blockquote>
<p>the principle by which a beneficent social order emerged as the unintended consequence of individual human action</p>
</blockquote>
<p>This principle is much wider that the one suggested in 1, and it is difficult to just recommend single paper. Technically, the interpretation of the first welfare theorem is an example of emergence of beneficial social order, so the same models can be used. The difference between this and the first interpretation is that this second one allows for a much wider set of models and conditions than those of the first theorem of welfare economics. For example, classical Ricardian model of trade can be considered a model of beneficial spontaneous order emerging as an unintended consequence of individual action.</p>
<ol start="3">
<li>There could also be some other, less popular interpretations. The statement could be interpreted much more narrowly just as Smith stating that increases in economic output generally increase incomes of the poor as well <a href="https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1217-2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">(Blaug 2008</a>). There are growth models in growth literature that (depending on their parameters) show this. You can see an overview of various growth models in <em>Introduction to Modern Economic Growth</em> by Acemoglu.</li>
</ol>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:20:42.480Z
I am really not sure what you mean by "straw man" in "*Your description of an invisible hand is a straw man, and academic literature typically avoids straw man ideas.*" I am familiar with the term straw man argument, but I don't think this fits the bill.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:21:41.670Z
@Giskard I explain that in the full answer
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:22:35.887Z
maybe I use word strawman incorrectly, in my mind that is worse/less rigorous version of original argument
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:24:17.283Z
Yeah, I don't think that is what straw man argument is. It is more like "bad faith argument"/not a point someone supporting something would actually make.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:24:57.313Z
In your answer "Smith never mentions selfishness here (nor self-interest)" is in conflict with "*he intends only his own gain*"
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:26:36.963Z
I also don't understand your distinction between "selfish" and "following self-interest". I don't understand the whole sentence "Rather any pursuit of one's self-interest (greatest value judged by one's own preferences) would qualify whether it is one that is selfish or not."
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:27:25.973Z
"Second, Adam Smith never referred to competitive markets" I don't think the word competitive is a pivotal point for the OP, he would probably happily edit if requested.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:28:41.023Z
@Giskard but as I explained there, and also as indicated by Smith in various other passages his own gain is basically tantamount to maximizing his own utility.. As you must be perfectly aware your own utility can include altruistic preferences
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:29:47.307Z
So you think "selfishness" excludes altruism while "self-interest" does not?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:29:53.553Z
Apart from these parts - which I feel to be knitpicky, perhaps some things are merely lost in translation - the academic part of the answer is excellent.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:34:43.000Z
@Giskard my understanding and reading of Smith is following: 1. Selfishness = Narrow self interest. 2. Self interest = following ones interests - smith actually almost  never uses word  self interest only once referring to the interest to  Roman church. Typically people translate following ones interest etc as self-interest in modern translation but then self-interest does not mean selfishness.3. Smith uses word gain in a bit vague way that is probably most closely related to notion of utility
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:40:44.217Z
I gave you my critique, but it is your answer, you do not have to change it if you don't want to. I feel that these more combative parts shift focus away from the other - IMO better - part of the answer.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T17:43:46.803Z
Everything after the first paragraph constitutes a perfectly good answer. But to characterize my description of the invisible hand as a straw man is I suspect simply a misunderstanding of the phrase "straw man". Having read a few more things, it appears my description corresponds to one of several possible interpretations of Adam Smith's words.
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T18:13:28.897Z
@Mick I respectfully disagree, just because there is more than 1 possible interpretation that does not mean that we can’t exclude some that we know for a fact that they don’t apply, your original statement was in my opinion straw man because it’s genuinely a bad version of smith’s argument. Also to be clear I do not assume bad intent on your part, I assume you probably read it in some blog post from someone because this is actually a common straw man version of Smith’s argument floating around internet
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:06:19.797Z
2023-07-14T12:08:27.033Z
2023-07-14T12:08:27.033Z
1muflon1
<p>Invisible Hand is a metaphor wherein Adam Smith assumes that God causes human beings to benefit others when acting in their own self-interest. So it is the invisible hand of the designer or creator that brings about the beneficial outcomes. (This is my effort paraphrase Evensky page 200).</p>
<p>See Evensky, J., Retrospectives: Ethics and the Invisible Hand, Journal  of Economic Perspectives—Volume  7, Number 2—Spring  1993—Pages  197–205:</p>
<p><a href="https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.7.2.197" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.7.2.197</a></p>
<p>ABSTRACT</p>
<blockquote>
<p>As  modern  economists,  we  use  Adam  Smith's  &quot;invisible  hand&quot;  metaphor confident that we  all  know  what  it  means  in  our discourse:  it  reflects our admiration  for  the  elegant  and  smooth  functioning  of  the  market  system  as  a coordinator  of autonomous  individual  choices  in  an  interdependent  world.  But in  Adam  Smith's  moral  philosophy,  the  invisible  hand  has  a  much broader
responsibility:  if  individuals  are  to  enjoy  the  fruits  of  a  classical  liberal  society, the  invisible  hand  must  not  only  coordinate  individuals'  choices,  it  must  shape the individuals into constructive  social beings—ethical beings. Revisiting Smith's
metaphor  provides  a  valuable  lesson:  the  foundation of  success  in  creating  a constructive  classical  liberal  society  lies  in  individuals'  adherence  to  a  common social ethics.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Evensky page 200:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Smith's  &quot;invisible  hand&quot;  metaphor  reflects  his  view  that  he  is  representing the  invisible  connecting  principles  of  the  &quot;immense  machine  of  the  universe&quot; (Smith,  1976b, p.  236) that  are  the  handiwork  of the  Deity. To  fully  appreciate the  impact  of this perspective  on  Smith's  moral  philosophy,  however,  one  must bear  in  mind  that  Smith  (1976b,  p.  166)  saw  the  Deity  as  not  only  handy,  but also  benevolent.</p>
</blockquote>
<blockquote>
<p>&quot;The  happiness  of mankind,  as well as of all other  rational  creatures,  seems to have been  the original  purpose  intended  by the Author  of nature, when he  brought them into  existence. No  other end seems  worthy of that supreme  wisdom  and divine benignity  which we necessarily ascribe to him  . . .&quot;</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Stiglitz, Joseph E., THE INVISIBLE HAND AND MODERN WELFARE ECONOMICS,
NBER Working Paper No. 3641. This reference is available online via SSRN and NBER. It discusses the limits on the concept of the Invisible Hand in the context of theorems of modern welfare economics.</p>
<p><a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=227430" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=227430</a></p>
<p>ABSTRACT</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This paper reviews and puts into perspective recent work
reassessing the first and second Fundamental Theorems of Welfare
Economics. It assesses the implications of the
Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem establishing the (constrained) Pareto
inefficiency of market economies with imperfect information and
incomplete markets as well as recent work on endogenous
technological change. The information theoretic limitations to
the Second Fundamental Theorem are also discussed, including the
inability to separate out issues of equity and efficiency. The
final sections of the paper consider the consequences of these
problems for economic organization, economic policy, and the role
of ideology in the belief in the Invisible Hand.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The Wikipedia article on Carlo M. Cipolla contains the following image:</p>
<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla</a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/bGscH.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/bGscH.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>Pareto requires that no one is worse off (incurs loss) when the self or others become better off (benefit). So Pareto efficiency requires not only acting in the self-interest but the anticipation that self and/or others will be better off and no one will be worse off. A rational bandit might gain more than the loss to a victim but that would not be Pareto efficient because the victim is worse off to make the bandit better off.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T16:27:21.463Z
-1 you are grossly misciting Evensky. As Evensky clearly sates Smith like Newton believed in a watchmaker idea of god (i.e. god as a designer). Following the idea god is some sort of watchmaker that sets a system in a certain way, not that god is some active entity. 2. As Evensky explains, Smith did not even considered this outcome inevitable, but most natural outcome and believed the nature is designed in this way by creator. So Smith did not assumed that god just magically turns individual action into collective benefit when acting in self interest, but that nature is designed that way
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T16:49:37.413Z
I quote the Evensky ABSTRACT verbatim.  Evensky explains that Smith had two views which changed over time. First view is that the invisible hand guides each agent to produce benefits to others via the pursuit of self-interest. This invisible source of beneficial "force" or "tendency" or "virtue" or whatever does not have to be attributed to God but Newton and Smith recognize the Diety as the ultimate source of cause. Second view is that moral and ethical virtue must exist among the agents for self-interest to provide benefit to others. This virtue may not be innate to human beings.
SystemTheory
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T16:52:30.837Z
I am not referring to your quote of abstract but first paragraph. If that paragraph is not based on Eversky then please provide citation to that information. Because your first paragraph is literally contradicted by the paper quoted below it
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T15:27:13.573Z
2021-10-31T17:14:52.527Z
2021-10-31T17:14:52.527Z
SystemTheory
<p>The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting <strike>selfishly</strike> in their own self interests will make choices that benefit others. There are innumerable popular articles that will describe why this is so but I am trying to find more academic literature, i.e. in peer reviewed journals that demonstrate this idea more rigorously, perhaps in the context of some simplified model economy and an agent's choice between multiple possible actions. I am not sure where to look and am concerned that &quot;invisible hand&quot; might not even be the correct key phrase to search - maybe such papers may express their results in terms of Pareto efficiency or some other language.</p>
<p>So my question is in several parts: Do such papers exist? And if so, would they express their results using the phrase &quot;invisible hand&quot;, and if not, what other expression would they use.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T11:12:00.907Z
Can you please back up your claim that "*The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting selfishly will make choices that benefit others.*", because this is not at all how I would put it.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T11:12:43.063Z
Also, have you heard of the first welfare theorem? Would the paper stating that answer your question? If not, can you please elaborate on what you have in mind?
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:40:00.567Z
@Giskard: The first sentence on the Wikipedia page on the invisible hand includes the words "the unintended greater social benefits and public good brought about by individuals acting in their own self-interests." - seems pretty close to what I said.
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:44:16.907Z
@Giskard: I did not know about that theorem - I'm looking into it now.
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:44:28.707Z
@Mick what you said is straw man of the quote you cite now.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:46:30.657Z
@1muflon1: I have no idea what makes you say that.
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:49:39.553Z
@Mick 1. in economics self-interest $\neq$ selfishness. Donating all your money to charity is perfectly good example of self interest as understood in economic writing. 2. Smith Never mentioned competitive markets - notion of competitive market did not existed in 1776. 3. Smith never claimed that it will always benefit others just that it delivers the greater public benefits, e.g. some action that benefits you but does  not hurt  others would also qualify. In fact pareto-improvements can occur with even single person being better off.
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:57:22.523Z
Re: "some action that benefits you but not others would also qualify" - wow.  That's not at all how it came across to me in pop explanations... but if that's the literal/academic interpretation then so be it.
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T12:59:35.800Z
@Mick moving from situation where A has \$ 0 and B has \$0 to situation where A has \$100  and B has \$ 0 is literally a pareto improvement and results in increase of total welfare in a society
1muflon1
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T13:00:23.923Z
My problem is not with this exact phrasing of self-interest (: The invisible hand guides the market to equilibrium, it "sets the prices". And then, there are all these consequences of the market being in a state of equilibrium, but that is not because the invisible hand is kind or anything.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T13:01:52.257Z
Wikipedia page quote is (IMO) a valid (though non-academic) reference, so though I disagree with the description I see where you get it from.
Giskard
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T13:10:35.500Z
@Giskard: So are you saying that the invisible hand concept and the first welfare theorem are synonymous?
Mick
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-10-31T14:52:57.977Z
No, I am saying that your description of the invisible hand concept is essentially the first welfare theorem. The invisible hand is quite nebulous, but I have always interpreted that it is more about the market reaching an equilibrium just by functioning, i.e. there is no need for a central planner. The invisible hand (IMO) is not about the exact properties of said equilibrium, though clearly one only participates in a market if it is in one's interest.
Giskard
<pareto-efficiency><adam-smith><free-market>
Researching the "invisible hand" in academic literature
Mick
# Researching the "invisible hand" in academic literature

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-10-31)

The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting selfishly in their own self interests will make choices that benefit others. There are innumerable popular articles that will describe why this is so but I am trying to find more academic literature, i.e. in peer reviewed journals that demonstrate this idea more rigorously, perhaps in the context of some simplified model economy and an agent's choice between multiple possible actions. I am not sure where to look and am concerned that "invisible hand" might not even be the correct key phrase to search - maybe such papers may express their results in terms of Pareto efficiency or some other language.

So my question is in several parts: Do such papers exist? And if so, would they express their results using the phrase "invisible hand", and if not, what other expression would they use.

**Tags:** pareto-efficiency, adam-smith, free-market

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Can you please back up your claim that "*The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting selfishly will make choices that benefit others.*", because this is not at all how I would put it.  
> **username_1**: Also, have you heard of the first welfare theorem? Would the paper stating that answer your question? If not, can you please elaborate on what you have in mind?  
> **username_0**: @username_1: The first sentence on the Wikipedia page on the invisible hand includes the words "the unintended greater social benefits and public good brought about by individuals acting in their own self-interests." - seems pretty close to what I said.  
> **username_0**: @username_1: I did not know about that theorem - I'm looking into it now.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 what you said is straw man of the quote you cite now.  
> **username_0**: @username_2: I have no idea what makes you say that.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 1. in economics self-interest $\neq$ selfishness. Donating all your money to charity is perfectly good example of self interest as understood in economic writing. 2. Smith Never mentioned competitive markets - notion of competitive market did not existed in 1776. 3. Smith never claimed that it will always benefit others just that it delivers the greater public benefits, e.g. some action that benefits you but does  not hurt  others would also qualify. In fact pareto-improvements can occur with even single person being better off.  
> **username_0**: Re: "some action that benefits you but not others would also qualify" - wow.  That's not at all how it came across to me in pop explanations... but if that's the literal/academic interpretation then so be it.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 moving from situation where A has \$ 0 and B has \$0 to situation where A has \$100  and B has \$ 0 is literally a pareto improvement and results in increase of total welfare in a society  
> **username_1**: My problem is not with this exact phrasing of self-interest (: The invisible hand guides the market to equilibrium, it "sets the prices". And then, there are all these consequences of the market being in a state of equilibrium, but that is not because the invisible hand is kind or anything.  
> **username_1**: Wikipedia page quote is (IMO) a valid (though non-academic) reference, so though I disagree with the description I see where you get it from.  
> **username_0**: @username_1: So are you saying that the invisible hand concept and the first welfare theorem are synonymous?  
> **username_1**: No, I am saying that your description of the invisible hand concept is essentially the first welfare theorem. The invisible hand is quite nebulous, but I have always interpreted that it is more about the market reaching an equilibrium just by functioning, i.e. there is no need for a central planner. The invisible hand (IMO) is not about the exact properties of said equilibrium, though clearly one only participates in a market if it is in one's interest.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2021-10-31. Score: 1

## tl;dr

Your description of an invisible hand is a straw man, and academic literature typically avoids straw man ideas.

When it comes to proper non-strawman version of the invisible hand argument there are several interpretations of the invisible hand in the literature as describing:

1. First Fundamental Theorem of Welfare Economics. For derivation and description of the [Arrow (1951)](https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/mon/m12-all.pdf) and Debreu (1951)
2. Spontaneous beneficial order that is a result of unintended individual action - this is covered by cornucopia of various models that have this property. Even Ricardian model of trade would technically apply.
3. There could be other interpretations such as just making relatively vague argument that the economic growth raises income of the poor/economics is generally not zero-sum game.

## Full Answer

**Correction of misconceptions in the question:**

Let me start by correcting some misconceptions

> The idea of the invisible hand could be expressed as: in a competitive market, agents acting selfishly will make choices that benefit others.

That is not an expression of invisible hand idea, it is a straw man of invisible hand. Academic literature, at least the high quality portion of it, does not examine straw men of ideas (e.g. you would not expect serious climate paper to address straw men like "if there is a climate change how is it possible there is a snow in a winter?").

First, Adam Smith used the metaphor *invisible hand* very sparingly, only 3 times in the whole corpus of his writing and only once in *Wealth of Nations* (WoN), which is the most relevant, where he states that:

> But the annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry, or rather is precisely the same thing with that exchangeable value. 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 public 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.

Adam Smith never mentions selfishness here (nor self-interest), but person's own gain, i.e. in modern lingo that person is trying to maximize their own utility. What everyone's greatest gain is depends on their preferences and pursuing charitable activity fully qualifies.

Adam Smith does say *also* say in other passages of WoN that purely selfish activity can increase public welfare, but in those passages he does it to emphasize that that his claim does hold even if people would be selfish. No fair interpretation of Smith would say that he stated that it is selfish action in particular, that is required here. Rather, any pursuit of one's self-interest (greatest value judged by one's own preferences) would qualify whether it is one that is selfish or not.

Second, Adam Smith never referred to competitive markets (the notion of perfect competition did not even exist at the time of Smith's writing). Adam Smith referred to free market, which is not the same as competitive market. Perfect competition was first developed by Cournot in 1838.

Third, Adam Smith does not make a claim that this *necessarily* increases welfare of others (there are other passages where he says it often does). In fact, Smith clearly states that because:

> annual revenue of every society is always precisely equal to the exchangeable value of the whole annual produce of its industry ... 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

In essence, Smith simply states here that the welfare/revenue of society is sum of individual welfare/revenue, that is $W = \sum\_i w\_i$, and thus if you maximize your own welfare you will contribute to the maximization of public welfare as well. But there is no requirement for your welfare improvements to also help others (although it could). For example, if one person gains but no-one else looses anything that counts as well as situations where one person gains, but other gain as a result as well.

**Research Relating to Invisible Hand**

The style of 18$^{\text{th}}$ century academic writing was less precise than we use at the present, and Adam Smith used the phrase "invisible hand" only 2 times in all of his published works, and 3 times if we count all of his unpublished works (Blaug 2008). Hence, there is a bit of ambiguity in the meaning of the term, but we can certainly exclude straw man interpretations such as made in the question.

Next, the following few interpretations are the ones that are most widely accepted are:

1. Adam Smith was implicitly describing the first fundamental welfare theorem. This is the claim made by [Arrow and Hahn (1971)](https://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=US201300476265) and MasColell et al. (1995) Microeconomic Theory (pp. 308, 327, 524, 545, 549).

You can see the original work on first fundamental theorems of welfare economics in [Arrow (1951)](https://cowles.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/pub/mon/m12-all.pdf) and Debreu (1951).

The above interpretation is popular but a criticism of this interpretation is that it seems to read too much into Smith's work. The first fundamental theorem of welfare economics requires perfect markets, no externalities and other assumptions that Smith was never *explicitly* discussing (see Berg 2008). Thus some economic historians would rather say that Smith was not describing fundamental welfare theorem.

2. According to Vaughn (1987) and Hayek (1973), Adam Smith was describing

> the principle by which a beneficent social order emerged as the unintended consequence of individual human action

This principle is much wider that the one suggested in 1, and it is difficult to just recommend single paper. Technically, the interpretation of the first welfare theorem is an example of emergence of beneficial social order, so the same models can be used. The difference between this and the first interpretation is that this second one allows for a much wider set of models and conditions than those of the first theorem of welfare economics. For example, classical Ricardian model of trade can be considered a model of beneficial spontaneous order emerging as an unintended consequence of individual action.

3. There could also be some other, less popular interpretations. The statement could be interpreted much more narrowly just as Smith stating that increases in economic output generally increase incomes of the poor as well [(Blaug 2008](https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1057/978-1-349-95121-5_1217-2)). There are growth models in growth literature that (depending on their parameters) show this. You can see an overview of various growth models in *Introduction to Modern Economic Growth* by Acemoglu.

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I am really not sure what you mean by "straw man" in "*Your description of an invisible hand is a straw man, and academic literature typically avoids straw man ideas.*" I am familiar with the term straw man argument, but I don't think this fits the bill.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 I explain that in the full answer  
> **username_2**: maybe I use word strawman incorrectly, in my mind that is worse/less rigorous version of original argument  
> **username_1**: Yeah, I don't think that is what straw man argument is. It is more like "bad faith argument"/not a point someone supporting something would actually make.  
> **username_1**: In your answer "Smith never mentions selfishness here (nor self-interest)" is in conflict with "*he intends only his own gain*"  
> **username_1**: I also don't understand your distinction between "selfish" and "following self-interest". I don't understand the whole sentence "Rather any pursuit of one's self-interest (greatest value judged by one's own preferences) would qualify whether it is one that is selfish or not."  
> **username_1**: "Second, Adam Smith never referred to competitive markets" I don't think the word competitive is a pivotal point for the OP, he would probably happily edit if requested.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 but as I explained there, and also as indicated by Smith in various other passages his own gain is basically tantamount to maximizing his own utility.. As you must be perfectly aware your own utility can include altruistic preferences  
> **username_1**: So you think "selfishness" excludes altruism while "self-interest" does not?  
> **username_1**: Apart from these parts - which I feel to be knitpicky, perhaps some things are merely lost in translation - the academic part of the answer is excellent.  
> **username_2**: @username_1 my understanding and reading of Smith is following: 1. Selfishness = Narrow self interest. 2. Self interest = following ones interests - smith actually almost  never uses word  self interest only once referring to the interest to  Roman church. Typically people translate following ones interest etc as self-interest in modern translation but then self-interest does not mean selfishness.3. Smith uses word gain in a bit vague way that is probably most closely related to notion of utility  
> **username_1**: I gave you my critique, but it is your answer, you do not have to change it if you don't want to. I feel that these more combative parts shift focus away from the other - IMO better - part of the answer.  
> **username_0**: Everything after the first paragraph constitutes a perfectly good answer. But to characterize my description of the invisible hand as a straw man is I suspect simply a misunderstanding of the phrase "straw man". Having read a few more things, it appears my description corresponds to one of several possible interpretations of Adam Smith's words.  
> **username_2**: @username_0 I respectfully disagree, just because there is more than 1 possible interpretation that does not mean that we can’t exclude some that we know for a fact that they don’t apply, your original statement was in my opinion straw man because it’s genuinely a bad version of smith’s argument. Also to be clear I do not assume bad intent on your part, I assume you probably read it in some blog post from someone because this is actually a common straw man version of Smith’s argument floating around internet  

---

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-10-31. Score: -1

Invisible Hand is a metaphor wherein Adam Smith assumes that God causes human beings to benefit others when acting in their own self-interest. So it is the invisible hand of the designer or creator that brings about the beneficial outcomes. (This is my effort paraphrase Evensky page 200).

See Evensky, J., Retrospectives: Ethics and the Invisible Hand, Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 7, Number 2—Spring 1993—Pages 197–205:

<https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.7.2.197>

ABSTRACT

> As modern economists, we use Adam Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor confident that we all know what it means in our discourse: it reflects our admiration for the elegant and smooth functioning of the market system as a coordinator of autonomous individual choices in an interdependent world. But in Adam Smith's moral philosophy, the invisible hand has a much broader
> responsibility: if individuals are to enjoy the fruits of a classical liberal society, the invisible hand must not only coordinate individuals' choices, it must shape the individuals into constructive social beings—ethical beings. Revisiting Smith's
> metaphor provides a valuable lesson: the foundation of success in creating a constructive classical liberal society lies in individuals' adherence to a common social ethics.

Evensky page 200:

> Smith's "invisible hand" metaphor reflects his view that he is representing the invisible connecting principles of the "immense machine of the universe" (Smith, 1976b, p. 236) that are the handiwork of the Deity. To fully appreciate the impact of this perspective on Smith's moral philosophy, however, one must bear in mind that Smith (1976b, p. 166) saw the Deity as not only handy, but also benevolent.

> "The happiness of mankind, as well as of all other rational creatures, seems to have been the original purpose intended by the Author of nature, when he brought them into existence. No other end seems worthy of that supreme wisdom and divine benignity which we necessarily ascribe to him . . ."

Stiglitz, Joseph E., THE INVISIBLE HAND AND MODERN WELFARE ECONOMICS,
NBER Working Paper No. 3641. This reference is available online via SSRN and NBER. It discusses the limits on the concept of the Invisible Hand in the context of theorems of modern welfare economics.

<https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=227430>

ABSTRACT

> This paper reviews and puts into perspective recent work
> reassessing the first and second Fundamental Theorems of Welfare
> Economics. It assesses the implications of the
> Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem establishing the (constrained) Pareto
> inefficiency of market economies with imperfect information and
> incomplete markets as well as recent work on endogenous
> technological change. The information theoretic limitations to
> the Second Fundamental Theorem are also discussed, including the
> inability to separate out issues of equity and efficiency. The
> final sections of the paper consider the consequences of these
> problems for economic organization, economic policy, and the role
> of ideology in the belief in the Invisible Hand.

The Wikipedia article on Carlo M. Cipolla contains the following image:

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlo_M._Cipolla>

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/bGscH.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/bGscH.png)

Pareto requires that no one is worse off (incurs loss) when the self or others become better off (benefit). So Pareto efficiency requires not only acting in the self-interest but the anticipation that self and/or others will be better off and no one will be worse off. A rational bandit might gain more than the loss to a victim but that would not be Pareto efficient because the victim is worse off to make the bandit better off.

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: -1 you are grossly misciting Evensky. As Evensky clearly sates Smith like Newton believed in a watchmaker idea of god (i.e. god as a designer). Following the idea god is some sort of watchmaker that sets a system in a certain way, not that god is some active entity. 2. As Evensky explains, Smith did not even considered this outcome inevitable, but most natural outcome and believed the nature is designed in this way by creator. So Smith did not assumed that god just magically turns individual action into collective benefit when acting in self interest, but that nature is designed that way  
> **username_3**: I quote the Evensky ABSTRACT verbatim.  Evensky explains that Smith had two views which changed over time. First view is that the invisible hand guides each agent to produce benefits to others via the pursuit of self-interest. This invisible source of beneficial "force" or "tendency" or "virtue" or whatever does not have to be attributed to God but Newton and Smith recognize the Diety as the ultimate source of cause. Second view is that moral and ethical virtue must exist among the agents for self-interest to provide benefit to others. This virtue may not be innate to human beings.  
> **username_2**: I am not referring to your quote of abstract but first paragraph. If that paragraph is not based on Eversky then please provide citation to that information. Because your first paragraph is literally contradicted by the paper quoted below it  

---

