Gottfried Haberler on America’s Place in the World Economy (1946)

Gottfried Haberler’s review assesses a collection of conference addresses edited by Arnold J. Zurcher and Richmond Page and published in 1945. The volume surveys American international economic policy, trade financing, investment, cartels, and relations with Russia, Britain, and Latin America. Haberler praises its range and intellectual quality, but reads its proposals against the altered circumstances of 1946. His governing concern is the distance between expert recommendations and political outcomes: agreement about the desirability of international economic cooperation does not ensure that governments will establish its conditions.

A perusal in 1946 of the present volume, an excellent specimen of this kind of literature (containing papers that were written about two years ago), leaves one with the disquieting impression that history seems to unfold its pattern with supreme disregard for what the great majority of experts and men of goodwill say should happen.

This opening establishes the review’s temporal perspective. The addresses remain valuable, yet their expectations belong to an earlier phase of postwar planning. Haberler neither dismisses expert discussion nor treats its abundance as evidence of practical success. Instead, he asks whether sound economic principles have been connected to the political choices necessary to implement them. The review proceeds through the collection’s contributors, frequently using contrasting treatments of the same subject to distinguish analytical merit from persuasive policy judgment.

Gideonse and Condliffe open the volume with general principles of American international economic policy. Haberler concentrates on Gideonse’s demand for frankness, particularly his preference for openly acknowledged gifts over a repetition of earlier postwar lending mistakes. The reviewer identifies an unresolved alternative: if explicit gifts cannot obtain political approval, should assistance be withheld or supplied as credits? The principle of transparency does not itself answer that question. Gideonse’s call for a wise peace with Germany similarly leaves its substance unspecified. Haberler contextualizes this omission by contrasting the atmosphere of the Atlantic Charter with the subsequent Potsdam Agreement. What seemed sufficiently clear when the address was written had become more problematic by the time of review.

The next contributions move from principles to financial institutions and investment. Marcus Nadler’s optimism about private trade financing draws Haberler’s objection that political conditions receive insufficient attention. H. D. White discusses Bretton Woods, while Herbert Feis advocates public and international development loans in his treatment of American capital abroad. Haberler’s brief notices preserve the volume’s breadth without assigning every contribution an equally extensive critique. His strongest interventions occur where an argument appears to simplify the relation between economic mechanisms and their institutional setting.

That concern informs his treatment of international cartels. Corwin Edwards’s attack is formally convincing, but Haberler disputes the asserted equivalence between private restrictions and government-imposed trade barriers. His response distinguishes consistency of principle from the relative importance of different obstacles:

Illogical yes, but not ineffective, because private restrictions are less important and depend to a large extent on governmental support (tariffs).

The qualification matters. Haberler does not defend private restraints; he argues that removing governmental barriers can be effective even without a simultaneous attack on cartels. Tariffs help sustain private restrictions, so the two forms of obstruction should not be treated as independent or necessarily comparable in severity. Redvers Opie’s more skeptical appraisal consequently serves as a useful counterweight to Edwards. Haberler values the collection’s capacity to expose readers to competing judgments rather than merely reinforce a common program.

A similar contrast organizes his account of American-Russian trade. W. H. Chamberlin’s sober analysis of its prospects and difficulties prepares readers to evaluate E. C. Ropes’s more exuberant official expectations. Here again, the reviewer favors attention to constraints over confidence unsupported by an adequate appraisal of circumstances.

The most sustained discussion concerns W. Y. Elliott and F. D. Graham on Anglo-American economic problems. Elliott emphasizes geopolitics, requests British concessions concerning raw materials and bases, and takes a pessimistic view of Britain’s economic future and balance of payments. Graham offers an unusually optimistic alternative: Britain may face less difficult industrial reconversion than the United States, employment can be sustained through monetary expenditure, and reduced imports need not seriously undermine prosperity. Haberler welcomes this challenge to prevailing opinion while questioning its compressed reasoning.

Is the problem of sectional unemployment and depressed areas entirely insignificant?

This question identifies what an aggregate expenditure argument may overlook. Maintaining total spending does not automatically explain how employment will be restored in particular industries or regions. Haberler also grants that international trade’s contribution to American prosperity may be exaggerated, but questions Graham’s extension of that judgment to Britain. His reservations concern the scope of the claims and the evidence needed to sustain them, rather than a blanket rejection of optimism.

Graham’s favorable long-run assessment of Britain nevertheless attracts Haberler’s sympathy. The reviewer asks for fuller argument and detailed criticism of the prevailing pessimism:

It is, however, to be feared that the naked statement of his position, as presented in the present volume, will not carry much conviction.

The closing notice identifies Carlos Dávila’s and Clarence Senior’s essays on Latin America and the Good Neighbor Policy without developing a further assessment. Taken as a whole, the review recommends a scientifically strong, well-selected collection while resisting the substitution of goodwill, formal consistency, or striking assertions for demonstrated feasibility. Its relevance lies in Haberler’s discriminating approach to postwar reconstruction: political conditions constrain financing, public barriers support private restrictions, and broad claims about prosperity require attention to national differences and uneven adjustment.