Hans Bayer · 1929
Hans Bayer’s 1929 study is a scholarly economic monograph that joins theory and empirical diagnosis: it first defines what “structure” and “structural change” mean for a national economy, then applies that framework to Austria’s postwar transformation. Its scope is the newly altered Austrian economy after the war, treated not as a mere aggregate of production figures but as a historically formed system of households, enterprises, groups, proportions, and relations. The central thesis is that structural change must be understood as durable alteration in the relations among these social-economic formations; Austria’s prospects therefore depend on whether its postwar adjustments strengthen the inner unity and coordination of the economy.
Bayer’s first conceptual move is definitional. A “Volkswirtschaft” is not simply the sum of economic actors, but an ordered configuration. Its structure lies in the proportions and relations among households, firms, and their groupings.
Der Inbegriff der Beziehungen und Proportionen zwischen den Sozialwirtschaftsgebilden und ihren Gruppen ist die Struktur der Volkswirtschaft.
English translation: The sum total of the relations and proportions among the social-economic entities and their groups constitutes the structure of the national economy.
This definition lets Bayer distinguish structural analysis from descriptive economic history. Not every alteration in an industry, firm, or household counts as a structural transformation. For a change to matter theoretically, it must modify the relational pattern of the whole economy. The key criterion is durability plus systemic reach.
Doch nur jene Änderungen von Dauer sind Strukturwandlungen, welche die Struktur der Volkswirtschaft, d. i. die Proportionen und Beziehungen zwischen den Sozialwirtschaftsgebilden und ihren Gruppen modifizieren, alle übrigen, z. B. solche, die auf die einzelnen Sozialwirtschaftsgebilde selbst beschränkt bleiben, sind es nicht.
English translation: But only those lasting changes are structural changes which modify the structure of the national economy—that is, the proportions and relations among the social-economic entities and their groups; all other changes, for example those confined to the individual social-economic entities themselves, are not.
The study’s relevance lies in this attempt to make Austria’s postwar crisis legible without reducing it either to political contingency or to isolated sectoral distress. Bayer treats the Austrian case as an empirical test of a broader theory: the postwar economy had to find a new coherence after the disruption of older economic spaces and inherited proportions. The practical question is not only which branches expanded or contracted, but whether production, income, and sectoral relations were being brought into a viable national arrangement.
A second important move is Bayer’s insistence that structural change does not suspend economic law. Political power, institutional reorganization, and historical rupture may alter relations of production and distribution, but they do not abolish the regularities recognized by economic theory. This keeps the work from becoming merely a narrative of exceptional postwar conditions.
Immer aber zeigt es sich, daß die Wirtschaftsgesetze, wie sie von der Theorie für die einfache und in abnehmender Abstraktion für die gesellschaftliche Wirtschaft erkannt wurden, durch keine Strukturwandlung der Macht geändert werden können.
English translation: Yet it invariably turns out that the economic laws, as theory has recognized them for the simple economy and, in decreasing abstraction, for the social economy, cannot be altered by any structural change of power.
On this basis, Bayer’s empirical argument emphasizes adaptation through positive recoordination rather than simple contraction. Austria’s viable development does not lie chiefly in mechanically shrinking “overdeveloped” branches, but in expanding production and bringing sectors into better proportional alignment. Structural healing means strengthening the unity of the national economy: relations among branches, groups, and income formations must become mutually supporting rather than inherited from a vanished imperial framework.
The conclusion, however, is not optimistic in a simple sense. Bayer’s account of favorable tendencies is set against a severe distributive background. Even where structural adjustment appears promising, the movement of income among and within living-standard groups points toward broad impoverishment.
Dieses Bild günstiger wirtschaftlicher Entwicklung hebt sich von düsterem Hintergrunde ab: Die Einkommensverschiebung in und zwischen den Lebenshaltungsgruppen verläuft, von einzelnen relativen Veränderungen abgesehen, in der Richtung allgemeiner Verarmung.
English translation: This picture of favorable economic development stands out against a somber background: the shift of income within and between the standard-of-living groups proceeds, apart from certain relative changes, in the direction of a general impoverishment.
The force of the monograph lies in this combination of analytic abstraction and social diagnosis. Bayer offers a theory of structural transformation precise enough to separate systemic change from local fluctuation, then uses it to interpret Austria’s postwar economy as a problem of proportions, coordination, and income distribution. Its policy relevance follows directly: economic policy must act on the structure of relations, not merely on isolated industries, and must recognize that growth or reorganization can coexist with a downward redistribution of living standards.
This work was divided into 47 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 47 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian