Mention Adam Smith, and most people immediately think of capitalism, self-interest, and the pursuit of profit. He is routinely presented as the intellectual father of the modern economic system, the man who taught the world that individuals seeking their own advantage would ultimately benefit society.
Yet after watching a recent documentary on his life and work, I was struck by a different Adam Smith altogether. Before writing The Wealth of Nations in 1776, Smith wrote another book, The Theory of Moral Sentiments. In it, he argued that human beings possess a natural capacity for sympathy – the ability to imagine ourselves in the position of others and to care about their wellbeing.
Far from depicting people as isolated profit-seeking machines, Smith saw them as social beings whose actions are shaped by conscience, empathy, and moral obligation. This raises an uncomfortable question. If Adam Smith understood the importance of human relationships, how did his name become associated with a world that often appears to reward individual gain over collective wellbeing? Perhaps the modern world remembered Adam Smith’s economics but forgot his morality. As I listened to the documentary, I found myself thinking about Ubuntu, or Obuntu, as it is known in many parts of East Africa. Ubuntu is often summarised as, ‘I am because we are.’ It is the idea that our humanity is realised through our relationships with others. A person is not merely an individual but a member of a family, a community, and a wider moral universe.
The similarities are striking. Smith spoke of sympathy. Ubuntu speaks of interconnectedness. Smith argued that human beings naturally care about one another. Ubuntu goes further and suggests that we become fully human through one another. Neither philosophy celebrates selfishness as a virtue. This matters because Africa today stands at an important crossroads. Across the continent, governments are pursuing economic growth, attracting investment and encouraging entrepreneurship. These are necessary goals. Poverty is not a cultural value, and wealth creation remains essential to development. Yet many Africans increasingly sense that something is being lost.
As cities expand and economies modernise, traditional networks of support are weakening. Extended families are under strain. Community obligations are often portrayed as obstacles to success. The language of competition frequently drowns out the language of solidarity. The result is a paradox. Societies may become wealthier while individuals feel more isolated. Economic growth may increase even as social trust declines. Adam Smith himself might have recognised the danger. He understood that markets do not operate in a moral vacuum.
They depend on trust, honesty, restraint, and cooperation. Remove these foundations and markets cease to serve society; instead, society begins to serve markets. Africa’s challenge, therefore, is not to choose between Adam Smith and Ubuntu. It is to recognise that both point towards an important truth: prosperity and humanity must grow together. The future may not belong to societies that generate the greatest wealth, but to those that successfully balance wealth creation with human dignity, social responsibility, and community wellbeing. In that sense, the most important lesson from Adam Smith is not economic at all. It is that a healthy society requires more than successful markets. It requires people who still care about one another.