Vincent de Gournay was one of the first representatives of laissez-faire in France, and one of its earliest advocates in public administration and intellectual circles. For that reason, he deserves far more recognition in the history of economic thought than he usually receives. I've tried to highlight his contributions in a recent book.

Born into a merchant family, Gournay became a successful merchant himself, amassing considerable wealth before securing a position in the French administration. Within the Bureau of Commerce, he was a fervent advocate of free labor and free trade.

Though he was well inserted in the context of the leading economists of his time, Gournay wrote little or, rather, published little. He wrote mainly administrative letters and memoirs, either unpublished or published by other authors after some editing.

What we do have includes:

These writings demonstrate a clear foreign influence and the presence of some major structuring ideas. The foreign influence, in Gournay, is the recognition of English and Dutch superiority. Gournay was convinced that these two nations understood economics far better than France, and that France must follow their example. "These two nations are the most prosperous", he said, "and they follow a completely different system than we do. We prohibit the entry of foreign goods, we confine economic activity within draconian regulations, while they proceed in the opposite manner. If they are doing better", Gournay concluded, "it is because France is guided by faulty principles".

His reform proposals centered around several key points.

First, he believed labor needed to be protected and encouraged. At the time, French workers were treated like criminals, constantly monitored, and kept in fear of not having complied with one of the thousands of regulations. This excessive annoyance discouraged people from working, pushing them instead toward idleness. Yet, Gournay argued, "work is noble and the only way to enrich a nation".

Secondly, he criticized the restrictive system of guilds that confined manufacturers. Participating in a trade was both time-consuming and expensive, and each new worker must then scrupulously follow the routine established by the statutes of his guild. Such a system left no room for excellence, innovation, or progress.

Third, trade in France was limited by restrictive laws. In Gournay's view, consumers would benefit greatly if ports could compete freely and all goods, such as grain and printed canvases, were allowed to be imported without restriction. He was one of the first to point out the true origin of smuggling: it existed solely because a beneficial and useful trade was prohibited. He added a sharp observation: smuggling was a "free" profession, with no regulations, no guilds, no confiscatory taxes. Yet it was the State's overwhelming regulation that drove many honest workers into illegality.

Finally, Gournay noted that interest rates were lower in England and the Netherlands, countries more prosperous than France. He advocated for lower interest rates in France as well, so that economic activity could be financed there on conditions as advantageous as elsewhere. Gournay did not, however, seek coercive, legislative methods; rather, he emphasized the need to legalize money lending, which was still condemned by the Catholic Church.

On all these points, Gournay played a key role in the intellectual debates of the mid-18th century. His defense of economic liberty predated the Physiocrats by a decade and Adam Smith by twenty years. But his most lasting influence was on Turgot. Gournay took the young Turgot under his wing and trained him with his ideas.

Years later, Turgot, a future minister under Louis XVI, wrote an Éloge (eulogy) in honor of his friend after his death. And if Turgot never completely embraced the Physiocracy of François Quesnay, it was because he preserved an invincible attachment to his first master, Vincent de Gournay.