Search results

Entrepreneurship, Money, and Coordination begins with a single page introduction by the editor, Jurgen Backhaus, a well known economist now at the University of Erfurt, in which we learn that the contribution by Horst Feldmann (Hayek's theory of cultural evolution: A critique of the critiques) provided the impetus for the book's remaining six chapters, a mélange of papers by Brian J. Loasby,¹ Jurgen G. Backhaus, Christian Schubert, Alexander Ebner, Martin T. Bohl and Jens Holscher, and Walter W. Heering. Unfortunately, the papers assembled here do not cohere well and in some instances are not altogether “reader-friendly.” The papers by Bohl and Holscher (a six-page overview and econometric analysis of Hayek's theory of competing currencies) and Heering (on monetary theory) seem rather disconnected from the main theme of the book. Surprisingly, Backhaus’ “Introduction” does not provide a useful integrating overview of the book's subject matter and papers, something readers surely would have appreciated from so eminent a scholar.

This chapter discusses the evolution of German views on public debt 1850–1920, referring to three strands of secondary literature: (1) German retrospectives on public finance, (2) the historical literature with a public choice perspective, and (3) contributions to public/constitutional law, mainly referring to Lorenz von Stein. The skeptic view of public debt endorsed by authors of the second half of the period is shown to be related to politico-economic issues of state agency combined with new state functions, rather than to the rejection of Dietzel’s Proto-Keynesian macroeconomic reasoning.

The purpose of this paper is to focus on links between former “Heilbronn Symposia” on social, economic and political changes, and evolutionary concepts of the nineteenth and early twentieth century to solve the “Social Question” (“S. Qu.”) in Germany.

The approach is based on references to authors of German historical schools, social policy, labor economics and liberal economic policy. The paper supplies a literature review in the area of social policy. It starts from different earlier definitions of the S. Qu. An overview is provided of selected studies of formerly leading German authors, who basically investigated economic and social policies conditioned by the existing economic system. The contents demonstrate different perspectives of the considered authors: Wilhelm Roscher's long‐term, even “modern” view of the development of property and wealth; Gustav Schmoller's broad view of economic and social development, demanding a strong state, efficient organizations of entrepreneurs and trade unions; Lujo Brentano's demand of basic institutional changes concerning labor markets and social security by trade unions; authors of different social‐economic studies written at the twentieth century, like Leopold von Wiese, Walter Eucken, Gerhard Weisser and Hans Peter Widmaier.

The findings point out: not all of the considered authors applied the same long‐term view; all of the authors demonstrated negative social effects of industrialization; authors of the twentieth century pointed out a broader concern of S. Qu. and social policy than former authors.

Areas of future research include: a broadening perspective of long‐term studies, and an increasing demand for analyses of social disturbances and of effects of social policy on the distribution of life conditions.

The comparison of selected authors focusing on their views of the S. Qu. in Germany during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries allows for special conclusions related to the causes, performance and measures to solve or at least reduce the burden of the S. Qu. in the considered economy.

It is proposed that social economics is in danger of losing its societal significance if economic analysis is reduced to one method only. Recently, prominent economists have emphasised the need to reintroduce the historical method into economic research work. A brief look is taken at some of the seminal examples of historical work in economics, particularly the German historical school. Other areas discussed include the scope and consequences of neglect of historical methods in contemporary economics; an outline of Schmoller′s work as an example of a historical social economist; and how Schmoller′s work compared with that of his contemporaries. The article concludes with a plea for a renewed emphasis on historical methods in economics.

It is impossible to provide anything other than a glimpse of such a complex figure as Nietzsche in the span of a review of a book on his influence (if any) on economics. Here I provide a summary of his life and major works. I have had to omit some works from the discussion, and also suppress a good deal of biographical detail. Some Nietzsche scholarship, especially that outside the analytical philosophical tradition, consider events in Nietzsche's life as important to understanding his philosophy, and look for explanations of his philosophy in his life, such as the lack of a father figure and the search for male role models in Wagner and Schopenhauer, and the effect of his chronic illness on his philosophy. If I consider these interpretive issues, I do so only tangentially.

The Netherlands, Women Gives a historical perspective on the economic position of women and the participation of women in the labour market, starting with Mill and Taylor′s The Subjection of Women. Reviews the current position, particularly in The Netherlands. Briefly summarises other papers from a conference held at the University of Limburg in February 1991. Finally, represents eight possible avenues for future research: the impact of taxes other than income tax and of tax deductions on women′s participation in the labour market; the effect of temporary regulations which are never relaxed; whether or not services relevant to the working mother should be directly connected with employment; the effect of economic activities inside the household; entry barriers into politics; the dysfunctional effects of Dutch tax reforms on women′s labour participation; analysis of Dutch fiscal and social policy from an ordo point of view; and joint analysis of the tax and social security systems.

Reports that, in 1943, Heinrich Freiherr von Stackelberg (1905‐1946) discussed with an informal group meeting in Freiburg (Breisgau ‐ Germany) “Limits and possibilities of economic planning”. Explains that the group called after its chairman “von Beckerath Circle” met to discuss problems of demobilization and the post‐Second World War economic order in Germany. States that Stackelberg’s lecture was found among his manuscripts and published after his death. Notes that Stackelberg is generally considered for his contributions to economic theory; little is known about his views on economic policy. Argues that his views on theory and policy were closely linked, however. Gives a concise statement of Stackelberg’s view on the post‐Second World War economic order in Germany. Points out that he argues strongly against (central) planning of the economic process, makes the important ORDO distinction between economic policy instruments compatible and incompatible with a market economy, but he is not a pro‐market economist of the anti‐state type. Explains that the state is assigned a wide range of policy options (in terms of policy instruments compatible with the market economy), ranging from specific forms of price intervention to income policies and extensive forms of taxation.

Friedrich Althoff (1839‐1908), who created the “Althoff system”, has had a singularly important influence on shaping academic institutions in Germany for almost a generation. As a close collaborator of leading German scholars his influence lasted almost throughout the second empire (1882‐1907). He has been described as brilliant by some and disastrous by others. Recent advances in the new institutional economics and the economic analysis of the organization of inquiry, as well as better access to the archival materials, have created the possibility of arriving at a clearer picture of the Althoff system. Is a first attempt at an economic analysis of the Althoff system; therefore should be viewed as an exploratory essay. In particular, addresses three questions: What precisely was the Althoff system? How can we go about analysing the system? How did the system function and perform? The essay has five substantive parts: first, offers a brief introduction to science research as it is currently practised in economics; second, introduces the historical record and the main criticism levelled against the system and offers a stylized description of the Althoff system in terms of emphasizing key features; third, subjects the stylized features of the system to economic analysis, relying heavily on the property rights theory of the firm and treating the university as an economic institution; fourth, takes a slightly different approach by applying Gordon Tullock′s analysis of the organization of inquiry to the Althoff system; fifth, offers a summary of the findings and an economic definition of the Althoff system.

In this essay we set out to show that Henry George's basic approach to economic thinking is very timely in the light of some pressing problems currently experienced by Western industrialised nations. The paper essentially makes two contributions. The first three sections are designed to show what Henry George's contribution consisted of and how it stands up in the light of contemporary economic thinking. Ultimately, our claim of Henry George's timeliness can only be tested by attempting to show what it can accomplish in trying to deal with a contemporary problem. We take the current clean‐up efforts in the context of the American Superfund programme as our point of departure and suggest how a Georgian approach to industrial siting might result in a more economical use of natural resources, rendering efforts such as the Superfund superfluous in the future. Obviously, before implementing a Georgian system, a phase of transition would be necessary, depending on the different institutional circumstances, and designed to clean up past and present pollution.