Friedrich von Wieser: Hock, Carl, Freiherr von (1808–1869)

Wieser’s biographical dictionary entry presents Hock as an exemplary union of economic scholarship and administrative practice. Its organizing judgment, attributed to Schäffle, is that Hock brought the art and science of political economy together with unusual success. The entry develops this assessment through a portrait of his intellectual versatility, his ascent through the Austrian customs service, and his independent positions on economic and political questions.

Hock’s administrative distinction rests on more than intellectual brilliance:

To these brilliant qualities must be added a special genius for the business of administration, in which he exhibited spotless integrity, and one of his greatest services was to purify the whole circle of official subordinates who came under his direction.

Wieser thus treats personal integrity as an institutional force, extending from Hock to the officials he supervised. His early work in mathematics, astronomy, fiction, philosophy, and history establishes the breadth of ability subsequently directed toward public service. The career narrative follows his rise from customs employment in 1830 to leadership in Trieste and Vienna, international customs negotiations, and ultimately the presidency of the highest court of accounts. His journalism also served Austrian political interests under Metternich and Kübeck.

The entry’s most substantive economic discussion concerns Hock’s approach to tariffs:

He held a middle position between the protective system of LIST, which he attacked in a pamphlet, and free trade.

This middle position receives a practical rationale: Hock evaluated industrial protection through production costs and detailed investigation of particular branches of production. The intended duties would enable domestic goods to withstand world competition. Wieser presents his policy as grounded in differentiated economic inquiry, rather than simple adherence to either protection or free trade.

Political independence supplies a parallel to this economic moderation:

His strong Catholic views did not prevent him from supporting the law which restored the control of elementary education to the State.

The example gives concrete substance to Wieser’s claim that Hock stood between parties. The closing account of his principal writings—on French financial administration, United States finances and financial history, and public levies and debts—returns to the connection between scholarship and government. His unfinished history of the Austrian State Council underscores that continuity. The entry’s significance lies in its compact portrait of a scholar-official whose authority derives from the conjunction of intellectual range, administrative probity, and informed policy judgment.