Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk: Review of Moriz Naumann’s Die Lehre vom Wert (1895)

Böhm-Bawerk’s short review of Naumann’s 1893 book combines praise for independent theoretical thinking with criticism of its treatment of costs and value. Its organizing paradox is that Naumann promises new paths and substantial opposition to marginal-value theory, yet produces what Böhm-Bawerk regards as a lucid reconstruction of that very theory. Agreement in results does not, however, preclude intellectual originality:

Denn wenn wir auch vom Autor überwiegend auf Resultate hingeletet werden, die nicht neu sind, so kommen sie doch vielfach aus irgend einer neuen, subjektiv originellen Verkettung der Gedanken hervor.

English translation: For even though we are for the most part led by the author to results which are not new, they nevertheless arise in many cases out of some new, subjectively original concatenation of ideas.

The review distinguishes novelty of conclusions from independence of reasoning. Naumann illuminates familiar propositions differently, adds details, and makes explicit what earlier marginal-value theorists had taught implicitly. Böhm-Bawerk thus credits him with rebuilding a theoretical structure through his own thought rather than merely copying it.

The decisive reservation concerns the relationship between costs and value, identified as the most difficult part of the subject. Here Naumann’s attempt to separate himself from marginal-value theory remains unresolved in two respects. His polemic misrepresents opponents because he has not adequately studied their arguments, attributing claims they did not make while overlooking claims they did. His positive account also fails to achieve conceptual clarity:

Sein Begriff des „Kostenwerts“ scheint mir an einer bedenklichen Zweidungigkeit zu leiden, die zugleich ein Symptom und ein Deckmantel für die sachliche Unklarheit ist, in der der Verfasser mit diesem Theile seiner Lehre noch steckt.

English translation: His concept of "cost value" seems to me to suffer from a questionable double-tonguedness, which is at once a symptom of and a cloak for the substantive lack of clarity in which the author is still caught with this part of his doctrine.

The objection is more than terminological: ambiguity in “cost value” both reveals and conceals an unsettled substantive explanation. The review does not develop a replacement account of costs; it locates the weakness and links sound theoretical criticism to accurate knowledge of the position being criticized.

Böhm-Bawerk nevertheless closes with a judgment of present achievement, not merely future promise:

Nichtsdestoweniger stehe ich nicht an, seine kleine Schrift nicht nur für eine vielversprechende Talentprobe, sondern auch für eine an sich beachtenswerte Leistung zu erklären.

English translation: Nevertheless I do not hesitate to declare his small treatise not only a promising proof of talent, but also an achievement noteworthy in itself.

The review’s significance lies in this calibrated assessment: an intended challenge can independently strengthen an existing theory, while a genuine point of disagreement still demands sharper concepts and more faithful engagement with opponents.