Ludwig von Mises: Review of Hereward T. Price’s Volkswirtschaftliches Wörterbuch, Part I: English–German (1927)

Ludwig von Mises’s journal book review evaluates the English–German part of Hereward T. Price’s economic dictionary, published in 1926. Its central judgment is qualified approval: the dictionary addresses a genuine need and is already useful, but its selection of vocabulary, explanatory precision, and translations require substantial correction. Mises proceeds from a statement of the book’s purpose through a series of detailed objections to a constructive closing assessment. The examples establish a consistent standard: a specialist dictionary should supply what ordinary dictionaries lack without becoming a compressed economics textbook or introducing judgments absent from the original terminology.

The opening locates the dictionary’s value in the practical difficulties of reading economic literature:

Die großen Wörterbücher versagen gerade dort, wo der Leser nationalökonomischer Bücher, Aufsätze und Zeitungsartikel ihrer Hilfe am meisten bedarf.

English translation: The large dictionaries fail precisely where the reader of books, essays, and newspaper articles on economics most needs their help.

This is the basis of both Mises’s welcome and his criticism. A specialist reference work must be judged by the obstacles its readers actually encounter. Price acknowledges that comprehensive coverage of economics and related disciplines is impossible, and Mises accepts that limitation. Nevertheless, he finds the omissions surprising: “Behaviorism,” “bootlegger,” “Institutionalism,” and “Utilitarianism” are missing. The inclusion of the Manchester school makes the absence of the Birmingham Currency School and the “little shilling men” particularly conspicuous, since the latter expressions are more likely to puzzle German readers. Conversely, familiar everyday words occupy space without receiving information beyond what an ordinary dictionary supplies. The problem is thus not simply insufficient breadth, but an inconsistent allocation of attention.

More serious than omissions are misleading explanations. Price translates “hoard” as a secret treasure or stock, whereas Mises points out that secrecy is no part of the term’s meaning in Banking School theory. The dictionary need not reproduce the entire doctrinal background:

Es hieße dem kleinen Taschenwörterbuch zu viel zumuten, wollte man von ihm verlangen, daß es den Ausdruck vollständig erkläre und etwa eine exakte dogmengeschichtliche Auseinandersetzung bringe; das müßte einem Wörterbuch der volkswirtschaftlichen Begriffe überlassen bleiben.

English translation: It would be asking too much of the small pocket dictionary to demand that it explain the expression fully and perhaps provide a precise discussion of the history of doctrine; that would have to be left to a dictionary of economic concepts.

Yet brevity does not excuse a false implication. Mises proposes identifying hoards as stocks of precious metals held by private persons and banks, to which the Banking School attributed a specific function in determining money’s purchasing power. A reference to Fullarton could direct readers toward fuller treatment. His conceptual distinction is between exhaustive exposition, which exceeds the book’s remit, and the minimum contextual accuracy necessary for a usable translation.

The discussion of Tawney’s “acquisitive society” makes explicit a second standard: fidelity to the evaluative force of the original. Price’s rendering describes a society consumed by acquisitive greed, while omitting the contrasting “functional society.” Mises suggests that this imbalance may reflect familiarity with Tawney’s shorter pamphlet rather than his fuller book. He recalls his own paired translations in Die Gemeinwirtschaft and explains their advantage:

Meine Uebersetzung hat den Vorzug, daß sie nicht mehr ethische Wertung mitschwingen läßt, als in dem englischen Ausdruck enthalten ist.

English translation: My translation has the advantage that it allows no more ethical evaluation to resonate than is contained in the English expression.

Mises does not deny Tawney’s moral intentions or pretend that the English terms are neutral. He acknowledges both the unfavorable assessment of acquisitive society and the popular evaluative associations already carried by acquisition and function. His objection is that a translator must not intensify those associations beyond the chosen wording. The passage makes translation an exercise in disciplined interpretation: understanding an author’s ethical position does not authorize replacing the author’s terminology with a stronger denunciation.

The remaining criticisms extend these principles across monetary theory, distribution, and international transactions. Mises approves the simple translation of “Currency Principle” as Currency theory without explanatory exposition, but asks why “Banking Principle” receives different treatment. Once Price elects to explain it, the explanation must be correct; defining it merely through opposition to limiting banknote issuance by existing gold cover inadequately represents its policy and says nothing about its doctrine. Mises points to Heller’s reference work for a more serviceable concise definition, while recognizing the limitations of any formulation compressed into very little space. He likewise suggests that Heller’s entry on the residual principle could have improved the treatment of “residual claimant” and supplied a reference to Hollander.

“Invisible imports” and “invisible exports” expose another risk of explanatory glosses: reducing a term with several uses to one narrow meaning. Mises distinguishes usage covering all balance-of-payments items apart from the trade balance, usage covering goods movements missed by statistics, and narrower usage covering particular services. Even the last requires more than shipping and banking, including tourism and overland freight. A straightforward translation would therefore have been preferable to Price’s insufficient explanation. The missing specialist sense of “general trend” in business-cycle reporting returns the review to readers’ practical needs.

Mises closes without treating the defects as grounds for rejection. Corrections from several quarters should help future editions fulfill the dictionary’s purpose more satisfactorily. His present verdict remains positive:

Auch so, wie es heute vorliegt, kann man es bereits als brauchbaren Behelf bezeichnen.

English translation: Even as it stands today, it can already be described as a useful aid.

The review’s significance lies in its concrete standards for economic lexicography: prioritize genuinely difficult vocabulary, distinguish translation from doctrinal exposition, preserve technical meanings and alternative usages, and avoid adding moral emphasis. Its criticism is demanding precisely because the reference work answers a real scholarly need.