Schumpeter’s journal book review of George J. Stigler’s preliminary textbook combines strong pedagogical endorsement with a critique of how economic theory should be organized and taught. Moving from the introductory chapters through household behavior, production, and pricing, it culminates in two questions about the foundations of instruction: whether perfect competition should supply the starting point, and whether general theory can be constructed apart from money. Its central tension is between admiration for Stigler’s exposition and dissatisfaction with the theoretical boundaries within which that exposition operates.
Schumpeter praises the book’s crispness, rigorous formulation, and accommodation of students with limited mathematics. He disputes its designation as advanced: its achievement is to make elementary theory unusually teachable, not to confront the problems occupying contemporary theorists. His detailed criticisms therefore express an investment in the book’s future use. Chapter 4 receives particular praise for introducing total, average, and marginal quantities and elasticities together, making their formal similarities available throughout the subsequent analysis.
The methodological introduction, however, misses distinctions that Schumpeter considers more useful than a general definition of economics through scarce means and competing ends. He distinguishes models clarifying the pure logic of economic relations from models designed to address statistical regularities, and asks for an explanation of theory’s departure from its Marshall–Wicksell background. Equally important is separating analytical methods from the character of the processes analyzed. Statics concerns quantities at the same point in time; dynamics concerns relations across time. Neither determines whether the underlying reality is stationary or changing:
Keynes investigates evolutionary processes by means of a static theory. A stationary process may be analyzed by means of dynamic theory.
This distinction prevents temporal change from being mistaken for a property of the analytical apparatus itself. Schumpeter’s criticism is that introductory teaching should equip students to understand these categories rather than bypass them.
His assessment of Stigler’s competitive-price analysis remains warmly favorable but discriminating. He welcomes the removal of older utility analysis from the treatment of household behavior, while questioning whether indifference varieties are indispensable: following Samuelson and Barone, he suggests that a consistency postulate can supply the required restrictions on choice. In production theory, he wants the properties of the production function established before costs are derived, and a clearer distinction between a particular technique and a function encompassing multiple techniques. Competitive pricing should move more deliberately toward a modernized Walrasian system, including determinateness and stability. The treatment of productive services is too sketchy, especially where brief applications promise more than they deliver.
The review’s strongest conceptual intervention concerns perfect competition. Schumpeter rejects its status as a norm capturing capitalism’s essentials while leaving only incidental disturbances outside the model:
The deviations from the perfectly competitive schema are themselves of the essence of capitalism and the source of phenomena that would be completely absent in perfectly competitive conditions.
Beginning with imperfect competition would consequently be more than a concession to realism. It would bring constitutive capitalist phenomena into theory from the outset and allow students to investigate how distinct institutional patterns might nevertheless produce similar results. If an ideal allocation scheme is needed instead, Schumpeter proposes a suitably chosen socialist model. This would also help undermine the assumption that either socialism or capitalism denotes a single arrangement representable by one model.
His final objection concerns the separation of nonmonetary theory from monetary and aggregate analysis:
But to “feed” one’s class exclusively on Keynes is one thing, and to ignore the monetary—and aggregative—aspect almost completely is another thing.
Rejecting both extremes, Schumpeter argues that monetary mechanisms belong at the foundation of general theory, together with Say’s law or an alternative to it. The issue is not merely how topics are distributed among courses: it concerns the adequacy of the analytical apparatus. The review’s lasting relevance lies in this connection between pedagogy and conceptual architecture. A lucid textbook must do more than simplify established results; its starting assumptions and sequence must make room for the economic phenomena theory seeks to explain.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian