sign in sign up
<<
Home , Adolph Wagner, Bruno Hildebrand, Karl Knies, Werner Sombart

The German Historical School1）: Toward the Integration of the Social Sciences*

Yukihiro Ikeda

Abstract: This article surveys the major secondary literature on the German Historical school produced for the most part from the 1990s onward. Following a brief introduction, and using the customary terms Older, Younger, and Youngest to identify periods of development in the school, I note with critical comment works on the Older Histori- cal school. Then in the following section we turn to work done on the Younger and Youngest members of the School. In the last section, centering on the questions of what has been accomplished and what is necessary to promote further studies, some general suggestions are given regarding future research. JEL classification numbers: B15, B25.

“I did not know Schmoller’s works or theories very well; what was impor- tant to me was only that I catch sight of him in the halls of the University of . I was afraid that he might die before I arrived in Berlin. How fortunate I was. I was sitting in the front hall when I first saw Schmoller, with grey hair and whiskers and wearing a frock coat. I was so very glad to have seen him.”（ Koizumi 2001, 432）

countries, eagerly sought to see Gustav I Introduction Schmoller, , or another of The German Historical school contributed a the great Historical school names at least major current in economic thought up to the once in their lifetime. Without exaggeration outbreak of . Countless students, it can be said that these people were among not only from but from many other the economic science superstars of their day. * Comments from Jürgen Backhaus, Ursula Backhaus, Naoki Haraya, Seiichiro Ito and Helge Peukert are gratefully acknowledged. The earlier version of the paper was read in a series of Brown Bag seminars at Erfurt University in 2007. I am indebted to Bundesbank, Erfurt branch for financial aids. Tetsushi Harada kindly gave me an opportunity to read a draft of his review article on Backhaus, J., ed., 2005, Historische Schulen, Münster: LIT Verlag. My thanks also go to the editors of this journal for giving me the opportuni- ty to write a survey article on the German Historical school. The usual disclaimer applies. The of Economic Thought, Vol. 50, No.1, 2008．Ⓒ The Japanese for the History of Eco- nomic Thought. 80 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

The influence of the German Historical ally offers a different set of tools and a view- economists waned during the interwar peri- point that can stand as an alternative to od, however, and never recovered its former mainstream . prominence in academic economics and pub- The new trend with its wider reach has lic administration. The school was almost encouraged more and more historians of eco- forgotten after the second world war, over- nomic thought to turn their sights to the Ger- whelmed by rapidly moving trends toward man Historical economists and the influence formalisation, mathematisation, and Ameri- they had in a number of countries. One result canisation in economics. It became a rela- is that the school is now considered to be an tively minor area in the history of economic important field in the history of economic thought. Yet interestingly enough, the 1980s thought, deserving of serious scholarly in- saw a renaissance of the German Historical vestigation. school. There were several reasons for its re- With the preceding as background, this surgence and the renewed interest in it since paper surveys recent contributions to the then. German Historical school written mainly in Among the main reasons were, first, the English and German. The main focus is pa- emergence of a new generation. For some pers published in the 1990s and later, but not time after the second world war, German excluding earlier ones. scholars were reluctant to engage in “Ger- In section II we shall examine recent man economics,” including the German His- publications on Wilhelm Roscher（1817― torical school; the nightmare of the Nazi past 94）, （1812―78）, Karl led to a wholesale rejection not just of relat- Knies（1821―98）, and all older scholars in ed economic theory, but of German econom- the school. We turn in section III to research ic thought in general. Now, a younger gener- on the Younger and Youngest Historical ation has begun seriously to consider the school economists, mainly Gustav Schmoller roots of the original German contribution to （1838―1917）and Werner Sombart（1863― economics.2）It is clear that the reevaluation 1941）. The last section offers some conclud- of the school is at least partially due to the ing remarks and thoughts on subjects for fu- maturing of a new generation of economists ture research.4） in Germany. II The Older Historical School Second, notwithstanding the dominance of neo- after World War To this day, publications on the Older His- II, a great many scholars remained unsatis- torical school remain scanty compared with fied, convinced of the need to seek other a steadily rising volume of published work ways to look at and understand the world.3） focused on the Younger German Historical Their probing investigations opened the way economists. Let me begin with Wilhelm Ro- to the so-called , which scher, the founder of the school. includes the German Historical school in its The Journal of Economic Studies, vol- fields of inquiry. The crucial question con- ume 22, numbers 3/4/5（1995）is a special cerning the school, however, is whether it re- combined issue presenting articles that to- IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 81 gether provide an overall evaluation of Ro- main work, Die Nationalökonomie der scherian economics. Since these articles Gegenwart und Zukunft（1848）was repro- originated in papers for the Sixth Annual duced in the series of classics in economics Heilbronn Symposium in Economics and the put out by Wirtschaft und Finanzen. As usu- Social Sciences organised by Jürgen Back- al, a volume of commentary accompanies the haus in 1994, this special issue offers a good reproduced book. I would like to briefly starting point for our survey. It is conven- mention the five papers included in that vol- tional wisdom that the German Historical ume. school downplayed the value of universal Bertram Schefold （1998b） introduces theoretical systems and that its adherents Hildebrand’s Die Nationalökonomie der were not interested in theories per se. Yet, Gegenwart und Zukunft with special atten- remarkably, some scholars argue that Ro- tion to its relationship with the communist scher was an outstanding economic theorist. movement at that time. In an intriguing point, The problem is, simply put, to what extent among others, for elaboration in future re- was that true? Was he an eminent theorist? search, he ventures to suggest the possibility In an article（in Schefold 1994）titled “Wil- that Hildebrand then already knew the text helm Roscher als führender Wirtschaftstheo- of Communist Manifesto. Furthermore in his retiker,” Erich Streissler（1994）tries to show biographical description Schefold emphasis- that Roscher was an economics theorist par es how much Hildebrand contributed to the excellence. Meanwhile in a contribution to creation of various banking institutions to the Journal issue noted above, Harald Hage- help workers, thus becoming a forerunner of mann contends that, “It cannot be denied that later social policies in Germany. To know Roscher, despite all his historical scholar- the importance of his stage theory not only ship, as an economic theoretician was inferi- as purely theoretical but also as purely his- or to Marx and Keynes.”（1995, 184）Thus torical research, the topic of how Hildebrand for Hagemann, Roscher remains a second- endeavoured to institutionalise these banks rate theorist. In my own contribution（Ikeda deserves full and detailed investigation. 1995）I demonstrate that Roscher’s scholar- Hildebrand’s stage theory is built around ship was deeply rooted in the English Classi- what he calls natural economy, money econ- cal school, using his masterpiece Die Grund- omy, and credit economy. In the last stage lagen der Nationalökonomik as my focus of one can recover the human relationships that analysis. All in all, Roscher as a theorist re- are lost in the monetary economy, he argues. mains a compelling topic to be tackled. But is that view justified? Gottfried Eiser- We will turn next to Bruno Hildebrand, mann （1998）, the internationally-known sometimes called the cofounder of the Ger- author of Die Grundlagen des Historismus man Historical school. Although he was an in der deutschen Nationalökonomie（1956）, immensely influential figure in the heyday of shows the one-sidedness of Hildebrand’s ar- the school and continues to be mentioned in guments in a biographical essay. Our modern the history of economic thought, his name credit-based society does not look like what appears seldom in the titles of papers. His Hildebrand had in mind. It is a huge, more or 82 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号 less inhuman society, driven by the motiva- is not a consensus as to whether the old his- tion of economic agents to make profits. toricism and institutionalism should be inter- Emma Rothschild （1998） examines preted as a forerunner of the new institution- Hildebrand’s critique of that alism. As recent scholarship, also introduced is laid out in Die Nationalökonomie der in Gioia’s paper, suggests, there might be, Gegenwart und Zukunft. According to Roth- rather, discontinuity between the old and schild, Hildebrand’s classification of Rous- new institutionalism. seau, Kant, and Smith in the same camp can- Along with Hildebrand, is an- not be supported when recent investigations other neglected figure among the older econ- are taken into account. Backed by extensive omists in the school. Again, a commentary quotations from , she con- accompanying a reproduced version of Das cludes that it runs against the current of re- Geld lets us review the contents of each pa- cent work in the history of ideas to under- per included in the volume. Bertram Sche- stand Smith as a rationalist, an opponent of fold explains the reason that the volume on the historical spirit. As her paper shows, money was chosen for reprinting, even there is no clear-cut demarcation between though there were other candidates, includ- the Scottish and French Enlightenment in ing Die politische Oekonomie vom Stand- Hildebrand’s works. Yet, it is still an open punkte der geschichtlichen Methode, a work question whether Hayek’s dichotomy of po- known as a programmatic statement of the litical thought can be justified. Historical school: Toni Pierenkemper（1998）, using recent works by historians, supports Hildebrand’s Das Geld von Carl Knies zählt zu den be- critique of , which held that sten theoretischen Leistungen der deut- to draw a completely dismal picture of the schen Nationalökonomie im 19. Jahrhun- ongoing industrialisation at that time was too dert-geschrieben von einem der Be- narrowly one-sided. As Hildebrand argues, gründer der älteren Historischen Schule. the problem of poverty was more acute Dieses Werk allein wäre genug, die Be- where the factory system was not yet intro- hauptung zu widerlegen, die Historische duced, in places such as and Ireland. Schule sei theorielos gewesen.（Schefold Hildebrand’s critical comments on Marx’s 1996b, 5） friend are intertwined with his prodigious ef- forts to gather historical data. The introduction is followed by an essay by The volume concludes with an article by Karl Häuser（1996）, who explores Knies’s Vitantonio Gioia （1998）, who again ex- contribution as a monetary theorist. Accord- plores Hildebrand’s stage theory, especially ing to Häuser, Knies’s attempt can be sum- in the light of recent developments in eco- marised as the answers to the following que- nomics, including work in transaction-cost ries: economics, property- analysis, and economics, and . 1） What is money? Gioia’s article indicates, however, that there 2） What are the functions of money? IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 83

3） What is the best monetary system? gie” and “Sitte,” Kobayashi clarifies Knies’s 4） Are bank notes money? Do they have methodological approach. As a Weber schol- to be regulated? ar, he also notes the relationship between Knies and Weber in the last part of the paper. Knies did not accept bank notes as money. III The Younger and Youngest Nevertheless he was close to the currency Historical School school in emphasising the importance of control over the money supply. Later in the Compared with work being done on the Old- paper Hauser explores the reasons that er Historical school, the number of publica- Knies’s monetary theory has been almost tions on the younger economists in the completely forgotten in textbooks. school is increasing. First we will concern Gottfried Eisermann（1996）, who has ourselves with Gustav Schmoller and the studied the German Historical school exten- secondary literature on him.5） sively, gives us a balanced view of Knies’s Nicholas Balabkins’s book（1988）, im- economic thought and his time. Eisermann pressively titled Not by Theory Alone...: The concludes his paper by saying that now we Economics of Gustav von Schmoller and Its do not have theory but theories, thus reaf- Legacy to America, investigates Schmoller’s firming the programmatic statement of the Grundriß and its impact in Germany and school that all theories depend on time and abroad, after giving a description of his life. place. Quoting from Wesley Mitchell, Balabkins Kiichiro Yagi（1996）, a Japanese histo- aptly summarises Schmoller’s arguments: rian of economic thought, is mainly con- cerned with the of econom- In America, it was Wesley Clair Mitchell ics but is deeply involved with Marxian eco- of Columbia University who once re- nomics. Here he deals with Knies’s theory of marked that Schmoller treated his material money with special attention to his critique from “four viewpoints,” namely: historical of Marx. In Yagi’s view however, the Marxi- evolution of any economic institution, sta- an approach to the problem still leaves room tistics, theory, and “what ought to be done” to answer Knies’s critique. Yagi tries to ac- about the problem under consideration. complish this task through a detailed analy- （63） sis of Knies’s Das Geld as well as Marx’s text. Yet one has to admit that it is a hard task to While these papers explore Knies’s Geld master history, statistics, and theory at the from several standpoints, Jun Kobayashi same time in this highly developed academic （2001）tackles Die politische Oekonomie world of ours, quite apart from the problem vom geschichtlichen Standpuncte, a book no- of how to integrate these different view- torious for being virtually unreadable. That points. work is still relevant for an understanding of We will now take a look at the volume his “idea of ,”（54）Koba- edited by Backhaus（1997）Essays on So- yashi says. Using the two concepts “Analo- cial Security and Taxation: Gustav von 84 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

Schmoller and Reconsid- state, as Schmidt’s next paper with Charles H. ered. It is a compilation of papers from three Powers（Powers and Schmidt 1997）indi- conferences organised by the editor, the first cates: on April 18―20, 1991 in Vinkeveen; the sec- ond on June 12, 1992 in Maastricht; and the However, these [theoretical. Y. I.] insights third on October 15―18 of the same year in are often hard to recognize in Schmoller’s Heilbronn. Altogether 23 papers are included work, because Schmoller（a）presented his in the volume, some on Schmoller, others on insights in a modest way（b）tended to Adolph Wagner （1835―1917）; and some bury his insights in so much historical and considering both together. statistical detail that the insights get lost, Manfred Prisching（1997a）explores the and（c）often qualified his insights so that model of the state that Schmoller and Wag- they would not be generalized too freely ner had in mind. Along with Lorenz von and misapplied（. 243） Stein, they emphasised the importance of the monarch in serving the common good. Fur- Franz Pennings（1997）attempts to evaluate thermore both of them supported constrained the economic policies of the Netherlands in , in which not all the people enjoy light of Schmoller’s insights. It is interesting suffrage rights. Their ideas stand in stunning to note that Schmoller was as deeply con- contrast to the radical opinions of the young- cerned with the labour market as later econo- er generation, such as Weber. In his sec- mists of the 20th century. In the case of high ond paper（1997b）Prisching claims that unemployment, he said, large-scale projects Schmoller had a theory of . Us- must be undertaken to create additional jobs. ing somewhat modern jargon, such as exter- Furthermore, it is better to hire workers at nalities and market failure, to make his case, lower wages than to fire them altogether, he he contests the widely accepted opinion that said. Another means to reduce unemploy- Schmoller did “not provide any theory of so- ment is labour exchanges. Schmoller thought cial policy.”（ 1997b, 203） that if all these instruments were used effec- Karl-Heinz Schmidt（1997）shows how tively, the problem of unemployment could Schmoller contributed to the theory of the be solved. welfare state. Although Schmoller was sym- In a compelling paper that gives a short pathetic to the idea of the welfare state, he description of the author’s academic career, did not accept it without some reservations. Antonio Silveira（1997）deals with Wagner First, he noted, the tax system can be influ- and Schmoller giving special attention to enced by dominant class interests. Second, their ambivalence toward economic theory. public debt enriches the upper class. If inter- On the whole, Silveira is sympathetic to the est is paid by taxes from the lower class, that German Historical school, and some remarks is already a form of income transfer. Not on the methodological debates between even Schmidt’s detailed analyses, however, Menger and Schmoller show that he does not make it entirely clear whether Schmoller’s share the oversimplified conclusion that concept can be called a theory of the welfare Menger was right and Schmoller was wrong: IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 85

On the other hand, the thor to author in the Backhaus work. In was the first great paradigmatic conflict the above mentioned paper by Prisching between pure and socio-economists. And （1997a）, both are considered to be members it seems legitimate to speculate that of the German Historical school, but Regi- Schmoller’s （1838―1917） fight might nald Hansen proposes that, “An example of have been a reaction against the pure econ- an economist who did not want to be associ- omists’ Ricardian Vice（. 362） ated with the historical school is Adolph Wagner.”（Hensen 1997, 292）7） In a lengthy paper, Johannes Hanel（1997） Insofar as several papers in Essays on examines Wagner and Schmoller as statisti- Social Security and Taxation are deeply in- cians in details. Wagner especially played an volved with Schmoller’s Grundriß, one important role in the Wirkungsgeschichte of would like to know how to grasp it. In fact Lambert Quételet, he argues. The main con- Yuichi Shionoya（[1995] 2005）provides a cern in Hanel’s paper is the relationship be- guide in the volume of commentary that ac- tween free will and statistical regularities. companies the reprinted Grundriss. Although Although it is not so obvious today why “the lengthy description in Grundriss of eco- these two concepts are mutually incompati- nomic conditions in different times and plac- ble, that was a stumbling block for those se- es is extremely boring and likely to put the riously engaged with statistics at the time. basic scheme out of the reader’s mind ...the Ursula Backhaus6） （1997） reads agenda of his historical-ethical approach is Schmoller and Wagner from the standpoint worthy of revaluation.”（27―28）He con- of health economics. Schmoller was of the cludes by giving concrete advice on which opinion that states and communities are re- parts of Grundriß are worth reading, thus sponsible for financing health care. He was giving readers A Guide to Schmoller.8） cautious concerning the possibility of free- Werner Sombart, a representative scholar riders but at the same time could pinpoint the of the later generation, is also enjoying case of Netherlands, where there were too something of a revival. Michael Appel many institutions prepared to give support. （1992）underlines in his Munich dissertation In the end, Schmoller was inclined to favour the relationship between Sombart and a market solution, through saving banks and Schumpeter. In Sombart’s reception history, cooperatives, for instance, whereby it would Schumpeter was an enormously important not be necessary to support the poor by pub- figure. In Appel’s opinion, Schumpeter’svi- lic means. sion of would be unthinkable In his paper on Wagner, Birger Priddat without the hot debate that circled around it （1997）emphasises the unique character of in German-speaking areas in the 1920s and Wagnerian economics, thus highlighting the 1930s. One of the main characters in the differences between the economist and his drama, to be sure, was Sombart. colleague Schmoller at Berlin University. In- The three volumes edited by Backhaus deed, the relationship between the two econ- （1996a, 1996b, 1996c）are, as is the one on omists is characterised differently from au- Schmoller and Wagner, results of the Heil- 86 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号 bronn conference organised by the editor. Scaff’s summary: First, Bernhard vom Brocke（1996）gives a balanced account of Sombart’s life, works, Perhaps there is reason to suppose that and influence. Then Backhaus（1996d）lists Sombart’s political thinking follows a tra- the members of Sombart’s seminar with de- jectory from Marx to Nietzsche, from tailed information on each participant. Sozialismus und soziale Bewegung to Among the participants, Emil Kauder and Händler und Helden, or from the critique Ludwig Lachmann are especially worthy of of capitalism to the critique of modern note. Kauder is a well-known player in the technology and material culture（. 157） history of economic thought, deeply interest- ed in the Austrian school of economics. He It seems that Sombart moved between Marx- is one of the many economists who emigrat- ist and post-modernist ways of thinking, ed to the . Among the so-called which makes him enormously difficult to modern Austrians, Lachmann holds a pecu- understand but at the same time an extremely liar position in that he was concerned with interesting object of study. the sociological and hermeneutic aspects of The topic of a paper by Pertti Töttö economic science. As Backhaus informs us （1996）is related but adds another twist. The via quotes from Walter Grinder, Kauder was paper is concerned almost exclusively with a tutor of Lachmann. Sombart, Lachmann’s Dieter Lindenlaub’s assertion that “Sombart mentor and dissertation adviser, did not en- made a methodological U-turn between the courage Lachmann to read works by mem- first（1902）and the second edition（1916） bers of the Austrian school, but perhaps of his magnum opus, Der moderne Kapita- someone occupying a chair in economics at lismus.”（ 227）Lindenlaub interprets the turn Berlin University at that time would not be as a methodological shift from a Marxist to a expected to recommend investigations into Geisteswissenschaftler. The author tries to the Austrian school. show the one-sidedness of Lindenlaub’sar- As to Sombart’s political stance, let us gument by a detailed analysis of Sombart’s consider the papers. Those that are roughly texts. classified as having relevance to his political Another paper dealing with the relation- thought can be further categorised as fol- ship between Sombart and Marx is Friedrich lows: Sombart’s turn from Marx to the Neo- Lenger（1996）. This is also an attempt to kantians or to Nietzche（these turns are of make a critical appraisal of Dieter Linden- course two different things）; Sombart and laub and Bernhard vom Brocke. In Lenger’s National ; Sombart and ; and opinion, the importance of Marxian influ- Sombart and war. Of these we must be con- ence cannot be overstated even when the tent to survey the papers in the first two sub- first edition of Der moderne Kapitalismus categories. came out. It was written in the context of the As Lawrence Scaff（1996）rightly points ongoing discussions about crafts at that time. out, considered in terms of his political atti- The same author（Lenger 1994）also wrote a tudes, Sombart was a complicated figure. In voluminous biography of Sombart written in IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 87

the scholarly style of historians. I will return ference, but before the publication of the to that work later. three volumes. The book was well received A touchy problem concerning Sombart’s among academic circles and general readers political thought is his relationship with Na- as well. It was reviewed positively by Sven ziism. This question continues to engage Papcke, but somewhat negatively by Kurt many Sombart readers to this day. Corre- Sontheimer to whom it seemed too objec- spondingly there has been a huge secondary tively written and lacking any final evalua- literature on the problem. After introducing tion of Sombart himself. This is indeed a big his idea of “leadership principle” who listens polemic in research on political and econom- to the voice of God, Fritz Reheis concludes ic thought. Is it necessary only to give a de- that “Sombart was neither Marxist nor Nazi.” tailed account of the personality based on ar- （Reheis 1996, 186）But, chive work? Or is it incumbent on the histo- rian to make a judgement about his or her As an ideologist he did in reality contrib- place in the history of the field? ute to the destruction of the Weimar Re- Peter Senn（1996b）takes up the diffi- public and as one of many protagonists of cult subject of the relationship between man the conservative he was in fact and science. Since Sombart’s problematic re- to share the guilt for German and lationship with Naziism and his views on its crimes（. 186） Jews can both be analysed within that frame- work, the main emphasis in Senn’s paper are Rolf Rieß（1996）gives us a succinct picture worth noting here. The following sentences of this problem. After critically scrutinising convey Senn’s central conclusions in a con- the secondary literature by Bernhard vom densed form: Brocke, Werner Krause, and Nicolaus Som- bart, he explores Sombart’s relationships No qualifications about anti-Semitism or with Nazi politicians, including Wilhelm Nazi ties can change Sombart’s place in Frick and Joseph Goebbels. According to the history of social science. His pioneer- Rieß, “He always liked to be a National So- ing work on the role of the Jews in the for- cialist.”（202）Exceptional in the study of mation of capitalism was productive of a the German Historical school, Rieß’s short century of later studies. His work on so- but excellent paper is based on a study of the cialism in America remains a starting point secondary literature, a necessary step not for studies of that subject. His history of only in the field of the history of economic capitalism is still unsurpassed. His views thought, but also in any other serious aca- about are still productive of in- demic field. sights. When the final verdict about his al- I must mention the methodological paper leged anti-Semitism and Nazi ties is hand- by Wolfgang Drechsler（1996）in this con- ed down, it will not make much difference. text. Here Drechsler refers to Lenger’s biog- （317） raphy on Sombart. Lenger’s biography was published in 1994 after the Heilbronn con- That paper by Senn was followed by Warren 88 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

Samuels（1996）, an American scholar of the Manfred Prisching（1996）is almost ex- history of economic thought, especially well- clusively devoted to the Sombartian entre- known in the field of institutionalism. As the preneur, which Prisching sees as combining subtitle shows, it is written as a review of Schumpeterian and Weberian concepts of Senn’s paper. Samuels cites recent develop- entrepreneurship. Schumpeter emphasised a ments in the interpretative method growing heroic and, in some ways, an irrational ele- out of the premises of post-modernist analy- ment of entrepreneurship, whereas Weber’s sis to criticise Senn’s classification of truth entrepreneur operates on the basis of a ra- and untruth, claiming it to be somewhat tional calculation of economic profit and naïve. Indeed, how can we persuade others loss. who would contest Senn’s assertion that In his analysis of the formation of capi- Sombart’s “ is still un- talism, Sombart stressed the importance of surpassed”? double-entry booking. According to the criti- It is difficult to identify Sombart’s eco- cal appraisal by Dieter Schneider, “Many nomics per se apart from the other areas with corporations especially the railway corpora- which it is intertwined. And Sombart himself tions are not keeping double-entry books and never set out to provide new insights into the Schmalenbach discusses as late as 1906 limited area of rigorous economic analysis. whether joint stock corporations should have Nonetheless, scholars tend to explore the a double-entry bookkeeping system at all....” following topics more or less in terms of （Schneider 1996, 44）In Schneider’s opinion, his economics.（1） Sombart’s dynamic eco- Sombart overemphasised the role of double- nomics; （2） concept of entrepreneurship; entry bookkeeping in the genesis of the capi- （3） historical analysis of capitalism; and talist system and in entrepreneurial activities. （4） importance of agriculture. Anyone interested in the arguments of In the conclusion of their（1996）paper, the Frankfurt school are familiar with the Harald Hagemann and Michael Landesmann concept of Spätkapitalismus. Günther observe that “Sombart’s approach to the dy- Chaloupek（1996a）explores this concept namics of economics system is that of an and its importance as he looks at capitalism economic historian rather than that of an today. Sombart’s obsession with the decrease economic theorist.”（ Hagemann and Landes- in labour productivity may not have been mann 1996, 197）That conclusion is second- very well grounded, but it is interesting to ed by Günther Chaloupek（1996b）, who un- note that Sombart was “very sceptical about derstands Sombart’s ideas as “a theory of the economic potential of new technologies economic systems” and “a theory of transi- such as radio, airplanes and motorcycles tion.”（Chaloupek 1996b, 205）Thus, one which in his view were mere gadgets, eco- might call Sombart’s account of economic nomically meaningless....”（ 173）Certainly transition “economic dynamics,” but only in this attitude can be reduced to Sombart’s the very long run. Certainly it is not a refined likes and dislikes as a member of the Bil- mathematical or axiomatic economic theory dungsbürgertum. appearing in journals today. We encounter the same difficult ques- IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 89 tions in a paper by Birger Priddat（1996）. ber tried to construct theories of historical From a Keynesian perspective, “Autobahn” economics. But in methodology, he argues, can be viewed as something that pumps up there is a difference between Schmoller and the whole economy, but Sombart has a dif- Sombart: while Schmoller used archive ma- ferent slant. For him, “The product is rather a terials to demonstrate to students the impor- luxury good than a necessary one.” Thus, tance of gathering historical data, Sombart “Sombart is-in a certain way a »classical put more energy into constructing a colour- German« economist, dealing with the state’s ful grand design of history, just as Marx did. superiority in all kinds of unreasonable and IV Conclusion: Topics for Future distorted preferences: it is a, rather modern- Research ized, cameralistic welfare conception.”（276） The basic thrust of Priddat’spaperisanex- In short, the German Historical school seems amination of Sombart’s attitude to agricul- to be of interest again. The enormous in- ture, with special attention to his relationship crease in the secondary literature on with . Schmoller and Sombart is a good sign of the Shin’ichi Tamura, an accomplished revival of the later members of the school. Schmoller scholar in , investigates the Yet, there are many questions to be resolved relationship between Schmoller and Sombart by future research. in his contribution （Tamura 2001） to A major issue in the study of the German Shionoya’s work（2001a）. Comparing the Historical school is the relatively few discus- first and later editions of Sombart’s Der sions taking place among scholars. That moderne Kapitalismus, Tamura attempts to problem has been pointed out by Helge demonstrate that Sombart’s shifting views Peukert in his survey article on Schmoller: may be partly explained by his willingness to consider Schmoller’s criticism. That is If we look back on the literature of the last why, argues Tamura, that Sombart did not ten years we have to recognize that a sim- recognise the importance of the state in the ple consensus on Schmoller’s program has earlier version of the work but in the second not emerged. A rather negative character- edition made serious efforts to account for istic of the renaissance itself is that there the role of the state. have been almost no discussions between Finally, let us take a look at Shiro Take- the contributors（. Peukert 2001, 96） bayashi（2003）, a 546-page book developed from a dissertation submitted to the faculty This is an important observation. Readers of sociology at Bielefeld University. Starting might have the impression that individual re- from the orthodox interpretation of the con- search projects are scattered, without any troversies over methodology between Carl substantial arguments between them. The Menger and Gustav Schmoller, the author normal development of research in the histo- interprets works by Sombart and Weber as ry of economic thought can be described as attempts to construct an historical sociology. follows, using a textbook approach to under- Takebayashi contends that Sombart and We- stand the development of science. 90 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

Thesis: A is B. For instance, Beveridge is with the history of economic thought. So far a Keynesian in his later works. Or Schmoller so good. But if one would like to go a step is a historian. If this is conventional wisdom, further in showing other ways to look at and then the antithesis is: A is Not B. interpret the world, based on the arguments Clearly the propositions should be: Bev- of the German Historical school, then it is eridge is not a Keynesian in his later works. clear that much work remains to be done in Or Schmoller is not a historian. Then perhaps the future. Thus, I would like to conclude after exchanging opinions, each side comes this survey by quoting a statement by to a new understanding: In some sense Bev- Shionoya: eridge is a Keynesian in his later works. Or in some sense Schmoller is a historian. This, In conclusion, the rational reconstruction to me, is the normal and most fruitful course of the German Historical School suggests of development of research in the history of that a lot of tasks must be performed to economic thought. provide an alternative to the However, we find many cases like the mainstream with regard to the method, following in the historical and theoretical scope, and underlying value premises of analysis of the German Historical school: Af- social science. Our attempt at the rational ter a scholar has shown that “AisB,” another reconstruction intends only to offer an begins to assert that “AisC.” This of course overview of the German Historical School does not contradict the former statement, but from the methodological perspective. Sub- it has no substantial relationship with it. stantive contents should be worked out in As careful readers have undoubtedly no- various ways at the frontiers of economic ticed, there are few instances when one en- research（. Shionoya 2001b, 16―17） counters exchange of opinions between Yukihiro Ikeda: Department of Economics, Schmoller researchers, particularly among Keio University those studying the older member of the Ger- man Historical school. Fortunately there are Notes some topics that are recognised to be of im- 1） In this paper we do not deal with the dif- portance in the case of Sombart. In this re- ficult problem of whether there was a group gard, let us recall the areas of common inter- of thinkers who can be neatly put together est among Sombart scholars, including ques- under the name “German Historical school.” tions about Jews, his relationship with Nazi- For our purposes, that is an assumption ism, and his methodological turn, among which we do not question here. In this re- others. gard, the following comment by Keith Tribe, who is sceptical about the terminology, is Another point or argument is whether or relevant: “The problem thus becomes: is it not the German Historical school can be an possible to arrive at a systematic understand- alternative to . If one ing of an object so diffuse as the ‘Historical is interested in Schmoller and Sombart only School’? Certainly, this was a label that unit- as historians of economic thought, this sub- ed the majority of German economists in ject is interesting mainly to those concerned their self-understanding, but it can be doubt- IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 91

ed whether direct interrogation of this object impact on, the real world and has stifled would today yield very much more than interdisciplinary collaboration.”（73―74） vague generalisations.”（Tribe 1995, 67） 4） As for the influences of the school in oth- Erik Grimmer-Solem （2003）, a historian er countries, such as the U.S. and Japan, see working toward his degree from Oxford, also Senn （1995）, Senn （1996a）, and Senn indicated the inappropriateness of the con- （1996b） for the U.S., and Yamawaki cept in the first chapter of his book. Pointing （1995）, Nishizawa （2001）, Yanagisawa to the inappropriateness of the concept, the （2001）as well as Ikeda（2005）for Japan, book is titled The Rise of Historical Econom- respectively. In this paper we cannot go into ics, not The Rise of the German Historical the details of those who are sometimes called School. Among the various findings in this forerunners of the German Historical school. book it is worthy of note that “Joseph For Adam Müller for instance, see Harada Schumpeter himself admitted the inappropri- （2004）. In the Japanese context, we must ateness of the term ‘younger Historical note that the study of romanticism in the School’ ashehaduseditinhisEpochen der field of political and economic thought was Dogmen- und Methodengeschichte.（” 21） extremely difficult due to the influence of Certainly, Schumpeter’s terminology was in- . In contrast to the study of fluential as usual among historians of eco- romanticism in literature and the arts, roman- nomic thought interested in the German ticism in our field was completely out of economists with an historical orientation. As vogue. For that reason Harada’s efforts merit the section headings show, I use Schumpeter- our appreciation. ian terminology in my paper. 5） Although the emphasis of this paper is on 2） For example, Jürgen Backhaus, who has the secondary literature in western languag- been playing a major role in promoting the es, I would like to mention the following study of the German Historical school, was work on Schmoller in Japanese by a Japa- born in 1950. He contributed greatly to the nese scholar as an exception: Tamura further understanding of the German Histori- （1993）. The book received the Nikkei Best cal school by organising the Heilbronn Sym- Book Award on Economics. posium in Economics and the Social Scienc- 6） In this paper the family name as well as es. the first is given when we refer to Ursula 3） Helge Peukert（2001）gives a solid over- Backhaus. When the reference is simply view of recent publications on the Historical “Backhaus,” it refers to Jürgen Backhaus. school. His main interest is Schmoller, while 7） On the other hand, in the abstract of his I survey publications on the Older Historical paper Hansen said, “Adolph Wagner and school and Werner Sombart, as well. Having Gustav Schmoller, who both belonged to the in mind chiefly the revival of Schmoller, younger historical school, held different Peukert described the problem as follows: views. It is the purpose of the contributions “How can this apparent Schmoller renais- to this volume on Wagner and Schmoller to sance be explained? A main, but rather nega- analyse their different concepts and ideas.” tive, reason is a general dissatisfaction with （Hansen 1997, 287） mainstream formal theorizing. Many econo- 8） Implied here is of course A Guide to Key- mists believe that the emphasis on theory nes by Alvin Hansen. Without this excellent over the past half-century has caused eco- introduction, the popularisation of nomics to lose much of its relevance in, and Schmoller’s economics in general and his 92 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

Grundriß in particular would be impossible. nomic Dynamics. In Backhaus （1996a）: 205―06. References Drechsler, W. 1996. The Revisiting of Werner Appel, M. 1992. Werner Sombart: Theoretiker Sombart: Implications for German Socio- und Historiker des modernen Kapitalismus. logical Thinking and for the German Debate Marburg: Metropolis Verlag. about the Past. In Backhaus（1996c）:287― Backhaus, J. 1995. Introduction: Wilhelm Ro- 96. scher （1817―1894）: A Centenary Reap- Eisermann, G. 1956. Die Grundlagen des His- praisal. Journal of Economic Studies 22 torismus in der deutschen Nationalökono- （3/4/5）:4―15. mie. Stuttgart: Ferdinand Enke Verlag. -, ed. 1996a. Werner Sombart（ 1863―1941）: -. 1996. Carl Knies in seiner Zeit. In Sche- Social Scientist. vol. I, His Life and Work. fold（1996a）:53―97. Marburg: Metropolis-Verlag. -. 1998. Bruno Hildebrand und die »Natio- -, ed. 1996b. Werner Sombart （1863― nalökonomie der Gegenwart und Zukunft«. 1941）: Social Scientist. vol. II, His Theoreti- In Schefold（1998a）:73―132. cal Approach Reconsidered. Marburg: Me- Gioia, V. 1998. Die Stufenlehre aus heutiger tropolis-Verlag. Sicht. Einige Bemerkungen zu Hildebrands -, ed. 1996c. Werner Sombart（ 1863―1941）: Stufentheorie. In Schefold（1998a）:209― Social Scientist. vol. III, Then and Now. Mar- 58. burg: Metropolis-Verlag. Giouras, A. 1994. Arbeitsteilung und Normativ- -. 1996d. Participants of Sombart’s Seminar. ität: Zur Rekonstruktion der Historischen In Backhaus（1996a）:115―29. Sozialtheorie Gustav Schmollers. Frankfurt -, ed. 1997. Essays on Social Security and am Main: Haag und Herchen. Taxation: Gustav von Schmoller and Adolph Grimmer-Solem, E. 2003. The Rise of Historical Wagner Reconsidered. Marburg: Metropo- Economics and Social Reform in Germany lis-Verlag. 1864―1894. Oxford: Clarendon Press. -, ed. 2005. Historische Schulen. Münster: Häuser, K. 1996. Knies als Geldtheoretiker. In LIT Verlag. Schefold（1996a）:31―51. Backhaus, U. 1997. Historical Approaches to Hagemann, H. 1995. Roscher and the Theory of Health Economics. In Backhaus （1997）: Crisis. Journal of Economic Studies 22 445―71. （3/4/5）: 171―86. Balabkins, N. 1988. Not by Theory Alone...: The Hagemann, H. and M. Landesmann. 1996. Som- Economics of Gustav von Schmoller and Its bart and Economic Dynamics. In Backhaus Legacy to America. Volkswirtschaftliche （1996b）:179―204. Schriften 382. Berlin: Duncker & Humblot. Hanel, J. 1997. Statistical Regularities, Freedom, Brocke, B. 1996. Werner Sombart 1863―1941. and Social Policy: Wagner and Schmoller Capitalism-Socialism: His Life, Works and on Freedom under the Statistical Law of Influence. In Backhaus（1996a）:19―102. Large Numbers Or Why Moral Statistics Chaloupek, G. 1996a. Long Term Economic Precede Their Association for Social Re- Trends in the Light of Werner Sombart’s form. In Backhaus（1997）: 513―94. Concept of »Spätkapitalismus«. In Backhaus Hansen, R. 1997. The Pure Historical Theory of （1996a）:163―78. Taxation. In Backhaus（1997）: 289―318. -. 1996b. A Note on Harald Hagemann/ Harada, T. 2004. Adam Müllers Staats- und Michael Landesmann, Sombart and Eco- Wirtschaftslehre. Marburg: Metropolis-Ver- IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 93

lag. and Transformation of the German His- -. Book Review of（Backhaus 2005）. Forth- torical School in Japan.” In Shionoya coming in Vierteljahresschrift für Sozial- （2001a）: 155―72. und . Pennings, F. 1997. Is Schmoller’s View on the Ikeda, Y. 1995. Roscher’s Grundlagen in the Principles of Social Security Still Relevant History of Economic Thought. Journal of in Present Debates on the Future of Social Economic Studies 22（3/4/5）:209―20. Security? In Backhaus（1997）:595―616. -. 2005. Die deutsche Nationalökonomie Peukert, H. 2001. The Schmoller Renaissance. und Japan: Spur der Berliner Ökonomen in History of Political Economy 33（1）:71― Japan. In Backhaus（2005）:112―21. 116. Kobayashi, J. 2001. Karl Knies’s Conception of Pierenkemper, T. 1998. Bruno Hildebrand und Political Economy: The Logical Status of der Pauperismus. In Schefold （1998a）: Analogie and Sitte. In Shionoya（2001a）: 173―207. 54―71. Powers, C. and K. Schmidt. 1997. , Social Koizumi, S. 2001. A Diary of Young Shinzo Koi- Welfare, and the State in the Eyes of Gustav zumi from 1911 to 1914: Tokyo, London, Schmoller. In Backhaus（1997）:239―57. and Berlin.（in Japanese. Seinen Koizumi Priddat, B. 1995. Die andere Ökonomie. Mar- Shinzo no Nikki: Tokyo London Berlin）To- burg: Metropolis-Verlag. kyo: Keio Univ. Press. -. 1996. Werner Sombart’s Late Economic Koslowski, P., ed. 1995. The Theory of Ethical Thinking: Back to Physiocracy? In Back- Economy in the Historical School: Wilhelm haus（1996a）:271―96. Roscher, , Gustav -. 1997. National-Economic Extension of the Schmoller, Wilhelm Dilthey and Contempo- Philosophy of Law: Adolph Wagner’s Legal rary Theory. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. Theory of Distribution. In Backhaus Krabbe, J. 1995. Roscher’s Organistic Legacy. （1997）: 341―60. Journal of Economic Studies 22（3/4/5）: Prisching, M. 1996. The Entrepreneur and His 159―70. Capitalist Spirit: Sombart’s Psycho-Histori- Lenger, F. 1994. Werner Sombart 1863―1941: cal Model. In Backhaus（1996b）:302―30. Eine Biographie. München: C. H. Beck’sche -. 1997a. The Preserving and Reforming Verlagsbuchhandlung. State: Schmoller’s and Wagner’s Model of -. 1996. Marx, the Crafts, and the First Edi- the State. In Backhaus（1997）:173―201. tion of Modern Capitalism. In Backhaus -. 1997b. Schmoller’s Theory of Social Poli- （1996b）:251―73. cy. In Backhaus（1997）:203―16. Milford, K. 1995. Roscher’s Epistemological and Reheis, F. 1996. Return to the Grace of God: Methodological Position: Its Importance for Werner Sombart’s Compromise with Na- the Methodenstreit. Journal of Economic tional Socialism. In Backhaus （1996a）: Studies 22（3/4/5）:26―52. 173―91. Nau, H. and B. Schefold, eds. 2002. The Histo- Rieß, R. 1996. Werner Sombart under National ricity of Economics: Continuities and Dis- Socialism: A First Approximation. In Back- continuities of Historical Thought in 19th haus（1996a）:193―204. and 20th Century Economics. Berlin: Rothschild, E. 1998. Bruno Hildbrand und der Springer-Verlag. Pauperismus. In Schefold, ed. （1998a）: Nishizawa, T. 2001. , Alfred Mar- 133―72. shall, and Tokuzo Fukuda: “The Reception Samuels, W. 1996. The Conditional Impact of 94 経済学史研究 50 巻 1 号

Werner Sombart and Others on Modern ence of Gustav Schmoller and Adolph Wag- American Social Thought: A Comment on ner on American and Taxation Peter Senn’s Article »Judgment in History«. Systems. In Backhaus（1997）:35―141. In Backhaus（1996c）:321―25. Shionoya, Y. [1995] 2005. A Methodological Scaff, R. 1996. Sombart’s Politics. Werner Som- Appraisal of Schmoller’s Research Program. bart under National Socialism: A First Ap- In The Theory of Ethical Economy in the proximation. In Backhaus（1996a）: 151―72. Historical School, edited by P. Koslowski. Schefold, B., ed. 1994. Kommentarband zum Springer: 57―78. Reprinted in The Soul of Faksimile-Nachdruck der 1861 erschienenen the German Historical School: Methodolog- Erstausgabe von Wilhelm Roscher Ansichten ical Essays on Schmoller, Weber, and der Volkswirstschaft aus dem geschicht- Schumpeter, by Y. Shionoya. New York: lichen Standpunkte. Düsseldorf: Wirtschaft Springer: 13―30. und Finanzen. -, ed. 2001a. The German Historical School: -, ed. 1996a. Kommentarband zum Fak- The Historical and Ethical Approach to simile-Nachdruck der 1873 erschienenen Economics. London and New York: Erstausgabe von Carl Knies Das Geld. Routledge. Düsseldorf: Wirtschaft und Finanzen. -. 2001b. Rational Reconstruction of the -. 1996b. Zum Geleit. In Schefold（1996a）: German Historical School. In Shionoya 5―12. （2001a）:7―18. -, ed. 1998a. Kommentarband zum Fak- Silveira, A. 1997. Senior, Wagner and simile-Nachdruck der 1848 erschienenen Schmoller: Indetermination and Social Poli- Erstausgabe von Bruno Hildebrand Die cy Conclusions. In Backhaus（1997）:361― Nationalökonomie der Gegenwart und Zu- 86. kunft. Düsseldorf: Wirtschaft und Finanzen. Streissler, E. 1994. Wilhelm Roscher als -. 1998b. Die historische Perspektive eines führender Wirtschaftstheoretiker. In Sche- liberalen Ökonomen. In Schefold（1998a）: fold（1994）:37―121. 5―53. -. 1995. Increasing Returns to Scale and the Schmidt, K. 1997. Schmoller’s Contribution to Prospects of Small-scale Enterprises. Jour- the Theory of the Welfare State. In Back- nal of Economic Studies 22（3/4/5）:16―25. haus（1997）: 217―37. Takebayashi, S. 2003. Die Entstehung der Kapi- Schneider, D. 1996. Sombart or Spirit and Ac- talismustheorie in der Gründungsphase der countability of Capitalism as »Enthusiastic deutschen Soziologie: Von der historischen Lyricism«. In Backhaus（1996b）:31―56. Nationalökonomie zur historischen Soziolo- Senn, P. 1995. Why had Roscher So Much In- gie Werner Sombarts und . Sozi- fluence in the USA Compared with the UK? ologische Schriften 73. Berlin: Duncker & Journal of Economic Studies 22（3/4/5）: Humblot. 53―105. Tamura, S. 1993. A Study on Gustav Schmoller. -. 1996a. Sombart’s Reception in the Eng- （In Japanese. Gustav Schmoller Kenkyu） lish-Speaking World. In Backhaus（1996c）: Tokyo: Ochanomizu Shobo. 147―286. -. 2001. Gustav von Schmoller and Werner -. 1996b. Judgment in History: The Case of Sombart: A Contrast in the Historico―ethical Werner Sombart. In Backhaus （1996c）: Method and Social Policy. In Shionoya 297―320. （2001a）: 105―19. -. 1997. Problems of Determining the Influ- Töttö, P. 1996. In Search of the U-turn: A Cri- IKEDA: THE GERMAN HISTORICAL SCHOOL 95

tique of Dieter Lindenlaub’s Interpretation -. 1995. Strategies of Economic Order: Ger- of Werner Sombart’s Methodological Devel- man Economic Discourse, 1750―1950. Cam- opment. In Backhaus（1996a）:227―39. bridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Tomo, S. 1995. Beyond Roscher or Not?: A Re- Yagi, K. 1996. Carl Knies und Wertformenana- appraisal of Menger’s and Böhm-Bawerk’s lyse von Marx. In Schefold（1996a）:99― Contributions to the Theory of Interest. 115. Journal of Economic Studies 22（3/4/5）: Yamawaki, N. 1995. Historism and 127―33. in Japan. In Koslowski（1995）:152―67. Tribe, K. 1988. Governing Economy: The Refor- Yanagisawa, O. 2001. The Impact of German mation of German Economic Discourse Economic Thought on Japanese Economists 1750―1840. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. before World War II. In Shionoya（2001a）: Press. 173―87.