Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T12:23:03.113Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Myth of the Older Historical School of Economics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

David F. Lindenfeld
David F. Lindenfeld
Affiliation:
Louisiana State UniversityBaton Rouge La.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a commonplace of German historiography and the history of economic thought in particular that German economists pursued a Sonderweq in the second half of the nineteenth century, rejecting the theoretical bases of laissez-faire doctrines that were common in Britain and France in favor of a study of economic history. This is generally viewed as taking place in two stages: first, an “older German historical school” that began to question the accepted dogmas of Smithian economics beginning in the 1840s, with the work of Wilhelm Roscher, Bruno Hildebrand, and Karl Knies. This allegedly preceded the “younger historical school” of the 1870s and after, dominated by Gustav Schomoller, Lujo Brentano, and Georg Friedrich Knapp. In calling the existence of this older school a myth, I want to draw on the currently fashionable connotation of the word “myth”: to say, in other words, that this received notion contains some important elements of truth—but masked in such a way as to distort its significance.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , December 1993 , pp. 405 - 416
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1993

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. See, for example, Spiegel, Henry W., The Growth of Economic Thought, 2d ed. (Durham, 1983); 413, 419–20;Google ScholarGide, Charles and Rist, Charles, Histoire des doctrines economiques, 7th ed. (Paris, 1947), 436–38;Google ScholarWinkel, Harald, Die deutsche Nationalökonomic im 19. Jahrhundert (Darmstadt, 1977), 82–89.Google Scholar

2. Schmoller, Gustav, Zur Litteraturgeschichte der Staats- und Sozialwissenschaften, repr. ed. (New York, 1968), 159.Google Scholar

3. See Schumpeter, Joseph, History of Economic Analysis (New York, 1954), 507–8, 808;Google Scholar Winkel, 99; Bruch, Rüdiger vom, “Zur Historisierung der Staatswissenschaften,”, Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte 8 (1985); 135–36.Google Scholar

4. Roscher, Wilhelm, Grundriss zu Vorlesungen über die Staatswirtschaft nach geschichtlicher Methode (Göttingen, 1843), iv.Google Scholar

5. See Roscher, , “Der gegenwärtige Zustand der wissenschaftlichen Nationalökonomie,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 1 (1849): 189;Google Scholar idem, Grundlagen der Nationalökonomic, 19, ed. (Stuttgart, 1888), 56.Google Scholar It is true that recent scholarship on Savigny has stressed the metaphysical and naturalistic assumptions underlying the historical school of law, which were similar to Roscher's view. See Böckenförde, Ernst-Wolfgang, State. Society and Liberty, trans. Underwood, J. A. (New York, 1991), 7–11, esp. n. 32.Google Scholar Nevertheless, one finds even in Savigny's systematic works a far greater degree of attention to the sources than in Roscher.

6. The commentator was Wilbrandt, Robert, quoted in Vom Bruch, “Historisierung,” 136;Google Scholar Winkel, 95; See Rau, Karl Heinrich, Lehrbuch der Politischen Oekonomie, 8th ed. (Leipzig, 1862–1868);CrossRefGoogle ScholarEisermann, Gottfried, Die Grundlagen des Historismus in der deutschen Nationalökonomic (Stuttgart, 1956), 150. 136;Google Scholar Winkel, 95.

7. The number of lectures in the history of economics fluctuated from sixteen in the 1840s to forty in the '50s to twenty three in the '60s to thirty seven in the '70s, whereas those in economic history went from one to five to nine to nineteen in the same period. These data are based on a nearly complete survey of lectures in the Staatswissenschaften from 1815 to 1914, drawn from catalogues, announcements in the Allgemeine Literatur-Zeitung and the Literarisches Centralblatt für Deutschland, and the former Zentrales Staatsarchiv Merseburg, Rep 76 V a. The sources were unavailable for. 25 percent of the cases in the 1840s, 2.25 percent in the 1850s, 0 percent in the 1860s., and. 25 percent in the 1870s. A further discussion of these data will be included in my forthcoming book, “The Practical Imagination: the German Sciences of State in the Nineteenth Century.”

8. Roscher, Grundriss, v.

9. Ibid., v; Eisermann, 123.

10. Hildebrand, Bruno, Die Nationalökonomic der Gegenwart und Zukunft, vol. 1 (Frank-furt, 1848), v–vi.Google Scholar

11. See Menger, Carl, Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre, vol, 1 of The Collected Works of Carl Menger (London, 1934), 108–9 n.Google Scholar

12. Weber, Max, “Roscher und Knies und die logischen Probleme der historischen Nationalökonomie,” in Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Wissenschaftslehre, 2nd ed., ed. Winckelmann, Johannes (Tübingen, 1951), 2.Google Scholar Hildebrand's programmatic works included “Die gegenwärtige Aufgabe der Wissenschaft der Nationalökonomie”, Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomic und Statistik, 1 (1863): 5–26, 137–46;Google Scholar “Die wissenschaftliche Aufgabe der Statistik,” ibid., 6 (1866): 1–11. His historical studies included “Die amtliche Bevölkerungsstatistik im alten Rom,”, ibid, 81–96; “Zur Geschichte der deutschen Wollenindustrie,” ibid., 186–234; 7 (1866); 81–153; “Die sociale Frage der Verteilung des Grundeigentums im klassischen Altertum,” ibid., 12 (1869): 1–25; 139–153; “Die Vermögenssteuer und die Steuerverfassung in Althessen während des 16. und 17. Jahrhundert,” ibid., 25 (1875): 217–312.

13. Conrad, Johannes, Lebenserinnerugen, ed. Kesten-Conrad, Else and Conrad, Herbert (Halle, 1917), 127.Google ScholarKrawehl, Otto-Emst, Die “Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomic und Statistik” unter den Herausgebern Bruno Hildebrand und Johannes Conrad (1863–1915) (Munich, 1977), 52–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14. Hildebrand, , “Die gegenwärtige Aufgabe,” Jahrbücher 1 (1863): 21–22, 137;Google Scholar “Natural-, Geld- und Kreditwirtschaft,” ibid., 2 (1864): 22–23.

15. Knies, Karl, Die politische Ockonomic vom geschichtlichen Standpunkte, 2nd ed. (Braunschweig, 1883), 35;Google Scholar the slight change of title in the second edition explains the discrepancy between this and the translation in the text. Knies also mentioned Hildebrand in this connection—as well as other less well-known figures as Edward Baumstark and Christoph Schüz. On Knies's early years, see Eisermann, 190.

16. Knies, 373–76, 381–82, 385–401. Schmoller recognized the distance between Knies and the historical school in Litteraturgeschichte, 205–6.

17. On Weber and Knies, see Hennis, Wilhelm, “A Science of Man: Max Weber and the Political Economy of the German Historical School,” in Mommsen, Wolfgang and Osterhammel, Jürgen, eds., Max Weber and his Contemporaries (London, 1987), 41–42.Google Scholar

18. Menger, xlviii, 78 n., 108 n. For a thorough account of this connection, see Streissler, Erich, “The Influence of German Economics on the Work of Menger and Marshall,” in Caldwell, Bruce J., ed., Carl Menger and his Legacy in Economics (Durham, NC, 1990), 31–68.Google Scholar

19. Lees, Andrew has made this point with respect to the post–1848 period in Revolution and Reflection (The Hague, 1974), 30, 34ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

20. List, Friedrich, Das nationale System der politischen Oekonomie, repr. (Berlin, 1982), 15–16, 132.Google Scholar

21. Stein, Lorenz v., Der Sozialismus und Communismus des heutigen Frankreichs (Leipzig, 1842), 15ff.Google Scholar

22. Stein, v., Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung in Frankreich, 3rd ed. (Leipzig, 1855), 3:48–49.Google Scholar For a general account of Stein's contribution to history, see Böckenförde, 115–45; Blasius, Dirk, “Lorenz von Stein,” in Wehler, Hans Ulrich, ed., Deutsche Historiker, vol. 1 (Göttingen, 1971), 25–38.Google Scholar

23. Schiffer, Eugen, Rudolf von Gneist (Berlin, 1929), 9–13, 29–34.Google Scholar

24. Gneist, Rudolf von, Der Rechtsstaat und die Verwaltungsgerichte in Deutschland (Berlin, 1879), 234.Google Scholar

25. Quoted in Schiffer, 47. On Gneist's indebtedness to Stein, ibid., 98.

26. On Gneist's achievement, see Schiffer, 18–27; also Heffter, Heinrich, Die Deutsche Selbstverwaltung im 19. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart, 1950), 379–403.Google Scholar

27. Roscher, Grundriss, 4; his lectures on politics, entitled Naturgeschichte der Monarchie, Aristokratie, Demokratie (Meersburg: 1933), were published posthumously.Google Scholar

28. Schlözer, August Ludwig von, Theorie der Statistik (Göttingen, 1804), 94–96.Google Scholar

29. Sartorius, Georg, Abhandlungen, die Elemente des National Reichthums und die Staatswirtschaft betreffend (Göttingen, 1806), 25–30.Google Scholar

30. Springer, Anton, Friedrich Christoph Dahlmann (Leipzig, 1870), 1: 260.Google Scholar

31. Pölitz, Karl L. H., Die Staatswissenschaften im Lichte unserer Zeit (Leipzig, 1827), 1:6–14.Google Scholar

32. Born, Karl Erich, Geschichte der Wirtschaftswissenschaften an der Universität Tübingen 1817–1967 (Tübingen, 1967), 45.Google Scholar

33. Rau, , Lehrbuch, 1.1:6.Google Scholar

34. Hermann, Friedrich B. W., Staatswirtschaftliche Untersuchungen (Munich, 1832), 14–15.Google Scholar

35. On German advocates of laissez-faire, see Lees, 142–44; Rohr, Donald, The Origins of Social Liberalism in Germany (Chicago, 1963), chap. 3;Google ScholarHentschel, Volker, Die deutschen Freihändler und der volkswirtschaftliche Kongress 1858 bis 1885 (Stuttgart, 1975).Google Scholar Hentschel warns against taking Prince-Smith's views as representative of the entire Congress of German Economists, as is often done (13).

36. Miaskowski, August von, “Gerog Hanssen, ein national–ökonomisches Jubiläum,” Schmollers Jahrbuch 5 (1881): 838–40, 850;Google ScholarMeitzen, August, “Georg Hanssen als Agrar-Historiker,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 37 (1881): 379, 411.Google Scholar

37. Schumpeter, 810n.

38. The number of seminars—including those attached to statistical bureaus—went from one in the 1840s to none in the '50s to two in the '60s to six in the '70s. The number of articles in the Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft on historical topics went from thirteen in the 1850s to twenty seven in the '60s.

39. Lindenfeld, David, “On Systems and Embodiments as Categories for Intellectual History,” History and Theory 27 (1988), 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

40. Kautz, Julius, Die geschichtliche Entwicklung der National Oekonomie (Vienna, 1860), 2:685–94;Google ScholarMangoldt, Hans v., “Volkswirtschaft, Volkswirtschaftslehre,” Deutsches Staatswörterbuch, ed. Bluntschli, Johann Caspar and Brater, Karl (Stuttgart, 1857–1870) 11:124;Google Scholar Roscher recognized the breadth of the appeal of history beyond the leading exponents of the historical school in his Geschichte der National-Oekonomik in Deutschland (Munich, 1874), 1039.Google Scholar

41. Mohl, Robert von, “Ueber Büreaukratie,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 3 (1846): 330.Google Scholar

42. Schäffle, Albert, “Rechtsphilosophische Zeitgedanken über politische Bedeutung der Nationalität, historisches Recht, Autonomie und Polizeistaat,” Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift 24 (1861); 289.Google Scholar

43. Smith, Woodruff, Politics and the Sciences of Culture in Germany 1840–1920 (New York, 1991), chap. 2, esp. p. 35.Google Scholar

44. For example, Mohl, Robert v., “Gesellschafts-Wissenschaften und Staats-Wissenschaften,” Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 7 (1851), 6–7;Google ScholarStein, , Geschichte der sozialen Bewegung, 1:cxvii;Google ScholarRiehl, Wilhelm Heinrich, Die Naturgeschichte des deutschen Volkes, 6th ed. (Stuttgart, 1867), 1:17.Google Scholar See Pankoke, Eckart, Soziale Bewegung-Soziale Frage-Soziale Politik (Stuttgart, 1970).Google Scholar