Gottfried Haberler on Hans Böhi’s Grundsätze und Methoden zur Ermittlung der richtigen Währungsrelation zum Ausland, Vol. I (1947)

Gottfried Haberler’s journal book review assesses a theoretical study prepared for the Swiss government on determining equilibrium exchange rates after the war. His judgment combines recognition of Böhi’s command of international trade theory with criticism of the study’s presentation and limited usefulness for American readers. The review proceeds from the book’s policy setting through its methods and terminology to a qualified assessment of its contribution.

Haberler first situates the study within an incomplete information environment. Written well before the war ended, it could not incorporate the developing Anglo-American discussion of postwar monetary arrangements:

The Keynes and White plans were not known to him.

This limitation matters because Böhi’s subject concerns precisely the currency relations that those proposals sought to organize. Haberler nevertheless treats the book as a substantive theoretical undertaking, rather than dismissing it for its distance from those policy debates.

The review next contrasts the study’s quantitative subject matter with its verbal method:

The book is almost entirely theoretical.

Only the final ten pages offer figures and a graph suggesting an application to Switzerland. Throughout the main argument, Böhi discusses demand, supply, elasticity, and national and international price relationships without algebraic or diagrammatic exposition. For Haberler, the problem is not simply abstraction: a closely connected argument about quantitative relationships becomes difficult to follow when its analytical structure remains entirely verbal. The absence of references to the literature further limits the reader’s bearings, although Haberler acknowledges the author’s familiarity with modern international trade theory.

Unusual terminology compounds this difficulty. Böhi uses elasticity for export value rather than export quantity, and positive elasticity for what ordinarily means elasticity greater than unity. Haberler nevertheless identifies the underlying approach as modern equilibrium theory. Its central conceptual move is to use price-and-cost comparisons as indicators of exchange equilibrium while recognizing the severe limitations of purchasing-power-parity theories. Comparisons therefore inform the analysis without supplying an unrestricted rule for determining the correct exchange rate.

The closing verdict preserves both competence and reservation:

The book is a workman-like performance, but, for the reasons indicated, the American reader will hardly derive much benefit.

Haberler’s review is thus chiefly an assessment of analytical accessibility and contemporary relevance. It credits Böhi’s theoretical understanding while questioning how effectively the study communicates and applies that understanding.