Article content continued

The fundamental difference between nationalists and cosmopolitans turns around the question of how much importance should be given to the welfare of foreigners. An extreme form of nationalism would hold that whether or not a foreigner lived or died, was happy or miserable is of no concern for domestic policy-makers. In contrast, an extreme form of cosmopolitanism would treat all peoples’ welfare — at home or abroad — as equally deserving of attention. Of course, no one actually holds either of these extreme views. Just like the left-right axis, it’s better to think of it as a continuum: nationalists give lesser weight to the welfare of foreigners than do cosmopolitans.

Economists — both the left-wing and right-wing variety — have historically had cosmopolitan leanings; the tradition of taking all peoples’ interest into account is deeply-rooted in the discipline. The reason why Thomas Carlyle dubbed economics the “dismal science” was not — as is widely supposed — a comment on T.R. Malthus’ bleak outlook for humanity, but a rebuke of economists’ support for the emancipation of slaves. As Sandra Peart and David Levy note in their essay ‘The Secret History of the Dismal Science’, “(i)t was this fact — that economics assumed that people were basically all the same, and thus all entitled to liberty — that led Carlyle to label economics ‘the dismal science’.”

This anecdote might surprise some, but these cosmopolitan leanings shouldn’t. Economists — both the left-wing and right-wing variety — are typically more supportive of free trade and open borders than are the rest of the population.