Richard Kerschagl: Review of Sven Helander’s Das Autarkieproblem in der Weltwirtschaft (1956)

Kerschagl evaluates Helander’s study through its historical method, empirical contribution, and account of industrialization. Despite its theoretical investigations, he places it within the younger historical school:

Die vorliegende Arbeit, des bekannten National-ökonomen enthält zwar eine Reihe theoretischer Untersuchungen, ist aber ihrem Wesen nach ungefähr in dem Ideenkreis der jüngeren historischen Schule gehalten.

English translation: The present work by the well-known economist does indeed contain a series of theoretical investigations, but by its very nature it is kept roughly within the circle of ideas of the younger historical school.

He compares its organization with studies by Hantos, Eulenburg, and Günther. Its chief achievement is the gathering, sifting, and updating of evidence that can support subsequent theoretical work.

Discussing partly or largely autarkic formations in the Soviet bloc, Asia, Africa, and South America, Kerschagl identifies a movement from industrialization toward autarky, followed by renewed demand for international cooperation as production generates surpluses. This return to interdependence remains precarious because it can involve a transitional crisis of overproduction. His assessment consequently emphasizes coordination:

Man gewinnt hiebei auch den Eindruck, daß ein weniger rasches Tempo und eine stärkere Koordinierung sowie eine bessere Abstimmung von Erzeugung und Verbrauch – auch über relativ kurze Perioden gesehen –, im Interesse der gesamten Weltwirtschaft gelegen gewesen wäre.

English translation: One also gains the impression in this connection that a less rapid tempo and a stronger coordination as well as a better harmonization of production and consumption — seen even over relatively short periods — would have been in the interest of the world economy as a whole.

The wording presents slower development and closer coordination as an impression derived from the material, not a universal law. Kerschagl’s concluding criticism concerns Helander’s insufficient recognition that autarky and world-economic integration are political as well as economic problems. The alternative between civilian consumption and military expenditure exposes the limits of an explanation confined to production and exchange. The review thus values Helander’s empirical scholarship while asking for a fuller account of the political choices shaping economic interdependence.