There are three different interpretations of Adam Smith’s trade theory in modern literature: first, the neoclassical theory of absolute advantage; second, an interpretation based on increasing returns; third, an interpretation of uneven development. These interpretations come to widely different conclusions, especially considering the development of the pattern of trade in Smith’s theory. I discuss how these three interpretations emerged. They do not stem from a more detailed analysis of Smith’s works itself but reflect changes within international trade theory. They all result from the fact that economists have imposed nineteenth- and twentieth-century modes of thoughts on Smith’s theory, forcing his writings into later-developed theoretical frameworks. In contrast to classical economists in the nineteenth century, these subsequent interpretations misrepresent Smith’s trade theory in order to portray him as a forerunner of later theories. The differing interpretations can thus be explained only against the backdrop of the development of international trade theory.

中文翻译：

---

改变国富论中的贸易模式：亚当·史密斯和国际贸易理论史

现代文学中对亚当·斯密的贸易理论有三种不同的解释：一是新古典绝对优势理论；第二，基于收益递增的解释；第三，对发展不平衡的解读。这些解释得出了截然不同的结论，特别是考虑到斯密理论中贸易模式的发展。我讨论了这三种解释是如何出现的。它们并非源于对史密斯作品本身的更详细分析，而是反映了国际贸易理论的变化。它们都源于经济学家将 19 世纪和 20 世纪的思想模式强加于斯密的理论，迫使他的著作进入后来发展起来的理论框架。与 19 世纪的古典经济学家相比，这些随后的解释歪曲了史密斯的贸易理论，以便将他描绘成后来理论的先驱。因此，只有在国际贸易理论发展的背景下才能解释不同的解释。