Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: Review of Two Works by Gustav Seidler (1887)

Böhm-Bawerk’s brief review assesses Seidler’s study of budgets and budgetary law in constitutional monarchy and the first, general part of his manual of public accounting. Its central judgment distinguishes the stronger public-finance analysis of the first book from its more difficult legal treatment, while commending the second for its suitability for university teaching.

The review follows the first book’s division between public finance and law. Budgetary concepts and purposes lead into historical development, financial techniques, and the administrative preparation and parliamentary handling of the budget. This last topic bridges the two parts; the legal discussion then proceeds from the history of budgetary rights in major European states to their doctrinal exposition. Böhm-Bawerk’s preference is explicit but qualified:

Im Grossen und Ganzen dürfte die finanzwissenschaftliche Hälfte des Buches die gelungenere sein.

English translation: On the whole, the half of the book devoted to public finance is likely to be the more successful one.

The qualification matters: weaker legal results do not imply superficial engagement. Böhm-Bawerk identifies the legal significance of the budget statute and the right to refuse taxation as especially intractable questions of public law. His assessment separates agreement with Seidler’s conclusions from recognition of his method:

Uebrigens wird man dem Verf. auch dort, wo man ihm nicht zustimmen kann, die Anerkennung nicht versagen, dass er den Schwierigkeiten nie aus dem Wege geht, sondern die schwierigsten Probleme herzhaft anfasst und einer gründlichen principiellen Lösung zuzuführen sucht.

English translation: For the rest, even where one cannot agree with the author, one will not withhold from him the acknowledgment that he never evades the difficulties, but takes hold of the most difficult problems stoutly and seeks to bring them to a thorough solution on principle.

The review thus values direct engagement with conceptual difficulties and the pursuit of principled solutions without endorsing every result. Historical treatment and close attention to the literature provide further grounds for praise. Böhm-Bawerk does not develop an alternative theory of budgetary law; his contribution here is a discriminating assessment of how financial analysis, constitutional doctrine, and historical inquiry meet in Seidler’s work.

The closing paragraph shifts from substantive evaluation to pedagogical fitness. Only the general first part of the accounting manual had appeared. Designed for academic use and supplementation through lectures, it earns approval for clear organization and concise expression. Across the two notices, Böhm-Bawerk judges scholarly ambition and instructional usefulness by distinct, appropriate standards.