Carl Menger, Neue Grundrisse der Politischen Ökonomie (1904)

Carl Menger’s journal book review compares two successful German-language introductions to political economy: J. Conrad’s Grundriß zum Studium der Politischen Ökonomie and Eugen von Philippovich’s Grundriß der Politischen Ökonomie. Its organizing question is how a textbook can make an increasingly extensive discipline accessible without sacrificing either intellectual independence or adequate coverage. Menger praises both works, but distinguishes their achievements: Conrad selects and explains the essential, broadly established content of the discipline; Philippovich maps its diverse problems and approaches with exceptional comprehensiveness and economy. The review thus articulates standards of economic instruction through a comparison of two different pedagogical designs.

Menger begins with the books’ reception. Alongside the larger works of Wagner, Schönberg, and Roscher, these outlines have found readers beyond the university audiences for which they were primarily intended. Their rapidly successive editions indicate a growing public demand for instruction in political economy. This opening makes their success more than a matter of academic reputation: the textbooks mediate between specialized scholarship and an educated readership seeking an informed understanding of economic questions.

The first and longer discussion follows Conrad’s work from its modest beginnings in 1889 as a short outline for his students to a four-volume treatment encompassing economics, economic policy, public finance, and part of general statistics. Menger stresses continuity within this expansion. The guiding purpose remains introductory: to present everything essential, but only what is essential, clearly and intelligibly. Selection is therefore a substantive scholarly task, governed by what readers need to form their own judgments.

Es sollte in demselben alles in übersichtlicher Weise geboten werden, was der Verfasser als gesichertes Gemeingut der Wissenschaft und dem Leser zur Bildung eines selbständigen Urteils als notwendig erachtet, das Zweifelhafte, Fernliegende, Unwesentliche und Unklare aber vermieden werden.

English translation: The work was intended to present, in a clearly organized manner, everything that the author regards as the established common stock of the discipline and as necessary for the reader to form an independent judgment, while avoiding the doubtful, remote, inessential, and unclear.

The qualification “what the author regards” matters: Conrad’s account is selective and bears his individual stamp. Menger does not equate a good introduction with an impersonal compilation. Instead, he praises the experienced university teacher’s ability to distinguish foundational knowledge from material that would obstruct an introductory exposition. The resulting clarity rests on judgment about the discipline’s contents, rather than on brevity alone.

Conrad’s treatment of controversy supplies the review’s strongest statement of intellectual fairness. Menger describes him as circumspect, objective, and mediating, inclined to foreground common ground even in questions caught up in partisan conflict. Yet this conciliatory disposition does not require suppressing personal convictions. Its merit lies in joining frank advocacy to the provision of evidence through which readers can assess opposing positions.

Gerade hierin möchten wir nämlich einen wesentlichen Vorzug desselben erkennen, daß der Verfasser seine individuellen Ansichten zwar überall mit rückhaltsloser Offenheit ausspricht, nicht ohne indes seinen Lesern zugleich ein selbständiges Urteil zu ermöglichen und ihnen das Material auch für die Beurteilung gegenteiliger Ansichten in reichlichem Maße zu bieten.

English translation: We would identify an essential merit of the work precisely in this: although the author everywhere expresses his individual views with unreserved frankness, he nevertheless also enables his readers to form an independent judgment and provides them abundantly with material for assessing contrary views.

Menger also endorses Conrad’s inclusion of statistics. Its history and theory, together with population studies, form the beginning of an account intended to extend to economic and intellectual culture. Statistics, economic history, and knowledge of practical life are treated as indispensable foundations for studying political economy. This judgment complements the praise of clear exposition: economic education needs both an intelligible conceptual presentation and familiarity with the evidence and circumstances of economic life.

The review then turns to Philippovich, whose distinctive strength is an expansive, modern conception of the field. His two published volumes seek an overview of theoretical and practical problems, economic and social policy, and the different directions in which solutions have been attempted. Where Conrad’s achievement centers on discerning the essential, Philippovich’s centers on avoiding gaps while eliminating unnecessary words.

Ihn interessieren in gleicher Weise die Probleme der abstrakten, wie der beschreibenden, die der theoretischen wie der praktischen Nationalökonomie, ebenso diejenigen der Wirtschafts- wie der Sozialpolitik.

English translation: He is equally interested in the problems of abstract and descriptive economics, of theoretical and practical economics, and likewise in those of economic and social policy.

Menger presents these paired interests as complementary dimensions of a comprehensive disciplinary survey. Philippovich’s concision occasionally relaxes for practical questions, especially social-policy issues of immediate importance. His breadth also produces distinctive organizational choices, which Menger particularly welcomes in economic policy because they improve the reader’s overview of the field and its problems. The published policy volume covers agriculture, industry, and foreign trade; market organization, transport, insurance, and consumption policy are reserved for a projected second volume.

The closing endorsement calls Philippovich’s work a valuable enrichment of German economic literature and especially welcome in Austria, where a work of this kind had been lacking. Throughout, Menger’s praise remains differentiated rather than competitive. The review’s significance lies in its account of economic pedagogy: authoritative instruction should combine clarity with independent judgment, empirical grounding with conceptual organization, and coverage of competing approaches with disciplined selection. Conrad and Philippovich exemplify distinct ways of meeting those demands.