Question

Historically, historians of economics viewed the shift from mercantilism to classical free-market economics in late eighteenth-century Britain as a sudden, ideological rupture initiated almost single-handedly by Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. This traditional narrative posits that merchant-driven trade restrictions were swiftly repudiated in favor of laissez-faire principles once theoretical frameworks demonstrated the efficiency of unhindered markets.

However, recent archival investigations by revisionist scholars present a far more convoluted evolution. Rather than abandoning mercantilist practices overnight, British policymakers selectively adapted regulatory mechanisms to shield domestic manufacturing while championing free trade exclusively in sectors where domestic industries already held insurmountable competitive advantages. Thus, what earlier commentators categorized as a doctrinal transformation was, in practice, a pragmatic reallocation of state protectionism.

While revisionist historians rightly highlight the persistence of state intervention and expose the oversimplification of the traditional model, their framework is not without its own conceptual vulnerabilities. By reducing shifts in economic policy entirely to opportunistic mercantilist maneuvers, revisionists understate the genuine intellectual reorientation that occurred among parliamentary lawmakers. Although Smithian economic theory did not instantly dismantle tariffs, it fundamentally altered the rhetorical and moral terms of legislative debate. Therefore, while the transition was neither immediate nor purely ideological, portraying it as mere cynical mercantilism under a new guise obscures the subtle but decisive impact of emerging economic theory on policy formulation.

Which of the following best characterizes the author’s attitude toward the revisionist historians' interpretation of eighteenth-century British economic policy?