Richard Kerschagl: Review of Arthur Spiethoff’s Die wirtschaftlichen Wechsellagen (1956)

Richard Kerschagl’s brief review assesses the justification for republishing Spiethoff’s early-1920s contribution to business-cycle research almost unchanged in two volumes in 1955. Its organizing question is whether an older treatment retains value despite its distance from contemporary economic modelling:

Dies gilt insbesondere dann, wenn es sich um eine Arbeit handelt, die doch ihrem Wesen nach weniger der jüngeren historischen Schule angehört und in vielen dem modellhaften Denken unserer Zeit auch in der Darstellung irgendwie fremd erscheinen muß.

English translation: This holds in particular when it is a matter of a work which by its very nature belongs less to the younger historical school and which in many respects must appear somehow alien, in its presentation too, to the model-based thinking of our time.

Kerschagl makes this apparent distance the starting point for a qualified endorsement, rather than a reason to dismiss the republication:

Dennoch kann man diesen Versuch aus verschiedenen Gründen im wesentlichen als gelungen und gerecht- fertigt bezeichnen.

English translation: Nevertheless, for various reasons one may on the whole describe this attempt as successful and justified.

Three considerations support this judgment. First, rereading Spiethoff reveals how comprehensively he had already addressed the essential problems more than thirty years earlier. Kerschagl contrasts that achievement with the comparatively modest advances and gaps filled by subsequent research, especially given the enormous literature it produced. The review thus questions whether increasing scholarly output necessarily signifies substantial intellectual progress.

Second, the tables constituting the second volume are praised as exceptional. Although Kerschagl qualifies the generality attainable by a largely historical presentation when measured against model-based thinking, he regards these tables as exemplary evidence of what historical inquiry can contribute to theoretical economics. His distinction does not separate historical material from theory absolutely; it identifies their productive connection.

Third, Edgar Salin’s short introduction, surveying the current state of business-cycle research, receives unusually emphatic praise for its insight, wit, and presentation. Kerschagl judges it sufficient in itself to justify publication. His closing appeal to multum non multa binds the review together: Spiethoff’s lasting analytical reach, the evidential value of his tables, and Salin’s concentrated exposition all exemplify intellectual substance over sheer quantity.