Oskar Morgenstern’s Review of Spiethoffs Konjunkturlehre: Darstellung und Würdigung (1939)

Oskar Morgenstern’s book review assesses Arthur Schweitzer’s presentation and criticism of Arthur Spiethoff’s business-cycle theory. Its central judgment is that recovering Spiethoff’s neglected contribution is valuable, but that Schweitzer’s theoretical examination proceeds by an unproductive methodological test. Morgenstern distinguishes faithful exposition from fruitful criticism: an account can accurately reconstruct a theory yet fail to establish its explanatory strength. He favors comparison and statistical investigation over judging whether Spiethoff’s work conforms to a prescribed conception of theoretical system.

The review opens by explaining why Spiethoff deserves renewed attention. His theory appeared across several papers, including the substantial 1923 article “Crises” in the Handwörterbuch der Staatswissenschaften. Morgenstern particularly values Spiethoff’s treatment of capital, which he regards as sufficient to place the theory above many later and better-known accounts of industrial fluctuations. Schweitzer’s book therefore addresses a genuine imbalance in recognition. This endorsement concerns the importance of the undertaking, however, rather than an unconditional approval of its execution.

Morgenstern follows the book’s division between exposition and criticism. Almost two-thirds reconstructs Spiethoff’s views and their development from his earlier writings:

He traces their development back to his earlier writings and gives, as far as I can see, a faithful account.

The qualification marks the measured character of Morgenstern’s approval. His concern is not misrepresentation but the utility of such extensive exposition. Given the relative inaccessibility of Spiethoff’s principal article, he asks whether republication might have served readers better, or whether Schweitzer could instead have assumed familiarity with it. The issue is how scholarship should make a neglected contribution available without allowing detailed reconstruction to displace evaluation.

The final third seeks the general theoretical assumptions underlying Spiethoff’s cycle theory. Morgenstern accepts this as a legitimate and interesting inquiry, especially because Spiethoff was an outstanding, though more moderate, follower of Gustav Schmoller. His dissatisfaction concerns the standards imposed during that inquiry:

The idea that a theory can be judged according to whether or not it is "systematic" or fits a preconceived general conception of a system is not necessarily very fruitful; this is particularly true in regard to the fact that for the purpose of such an analysis the very latest methods of scientific thinking should be employed.

The distinction is between investigating a theory’s foundations and demanding conformity to an independently prescribed framework. Morgenstern attributes the latter tendency to Schweitzer’s reliance on his teacher, A. Löwe. Spiethoff’s resistance to this methodological “strait-jacket” need not count against his theory. Morgenstern also disputes particular logical instruments used in the criticism, notably the claim that axioms are incapable of proof. The review registers this objection briefly rather than developing an alternative account of axioms.

The decisive criticism is empirical:

The principal grievance, however, which one must feel is that the whole book is entirely free from any attempt to verify or disprove Spiethoff's conjectures by recourse to statistical methods.

Morgenstern proposes a concrete alternative: compare different theorists’ concepts of “capital shortage,” then investigate whether Spiethoff’s contribution performs best. This would connect conceptual distinctions to empirical appraisal while clarifying the theory’s relationship to contemporary rivals. His proposed test follows directly from the opening praise of Spiethoff’s treatment of capital; the neglected strength should become an object of investigation, not merely recognition.

The review closes by preserving the distinction between methodological dissatisfaction and dismissal. Morgenstern affirms that the book can be read profitably and acknowledges its earnestness and scientific spirit. Its broader relevance lies in the evaluative standard it articulates: faithful historical exposition and scrutiny of theoretical assumptions are worthwhile, but comparison and statistical testing promise a more substantive assessment of business-cycle explanations than conformity to a preconceived system.