Friedrich August von Hayek: Review of A History of Economic Ideas, by Edmund Whittaker (1941)

Hayek’s journal book review evaluates Whittaker’s textbook as an experiment in organizing the history of economics around problems rather than a continuous chronological narrative. Its central judgment is qualified approval: the topical arrangement produces useful accounts of particular debates, but does not adequately reveal either the development of economics as a whole or the connections among an individual economist’s positions. Hayek assesses the book chiefly through the demands of teaching, asking whether its breadth can make it a sufficient historical introduction for students.

In this American textbook the interesting attempt is made to present the history of economic ideas not in a single chronological exposition but by dealing in each of twenty-five chapters with the history of one of the main problems with which economics has had to deal.

This organization combines theoretical discussion with the history of institutions, economic conditions, and political ideas. Hayek recognizes a practical advantage: students who consult only one historical textbook may benefit from encountering these subjects together. Yet that ambition raises the standard the book must meet. Separate histories of problems need to convey the discipline’s general tendencies and explain how an author’s views on different questions belong together. Otherwise, breadth of coverage does not yield historical understanding.

Edwin Cannan’s Review of Economic Theory provides Hayek’s point of comparison. Cannan came closest to solving this problem through a restrictive selection of authors. Whittaker’s more comprehensive undertaking makes the task harder, and Hayek treats its shortcomings as partly inherent in the plan rather than simply failures of execution. His practical conclusion is that students will need a conventional chronological account alongside Whittaker to understand the significance of the doctrines discussed.

The review then distinguishes this structural limitation from the quality of the individual discussions:

It gives a workmanlike and careful account of the discussions of the main problems, the selection of the authors discussed is skilful and often deviates to its advantage from the traditional pattern, and ample and well-selected quotations give a good idea of the type of reasoning employed by the various writers.

Hayek values both the departure from familiar selections of economists and the use of quotations to convey how they reasoned. His praise therefore concerns more than factual coverage: the textbook gives readers access to the argumentative character of earlier economics.

The specific criticism of the treatment of rent illustrates why historical relationships matter. Whittaker’s comparison of Malthus’s presentation with Ricardo’s may obscure the fact that the cited Malthus pamphlet preceded Ricardo’s first published exposition in the same year. Hayek’s objection concerns the implied affiliation of ideas, not merely a missing date. A topical account can mislead when its comparative judgments leave the sequence of contributions unclear.

Nevertheless, the review closes by subordinating such defects to the book’s strengths:

But minor flaws of this kind are more than compensated by the sure touch which the author shows in the treatment of such difficult questions as the various methodological disputes and the general well-balanced character of the discussion.

Whittaker emerges as a careful, balanced guide whose textbook is valuable but needs chronological supplementation. The review’s broader relevance lies in its distinction between explaining individual economic problems and explaining the historical coherence of a discipline: a successful history of ideas must do both.