Böhm-Bawerk’s review surveys Dutch, Italian, and German writings to assess the reception of marginal utility theory and its explanatory power. Its geographical progression distinguishes an established research instrument in the Netherlands, a developing and contested framework in Italy, and continuing conceptual disputes in Germany. Throughout, theoretical achievement means explaining economic relationships, not merely securing agreement over definitions.
Kurz, seit Pierson arbeitet die jüngere Generation in Holland schon nicht mehr an der Werttheorie, sondern mittels der Werttheorie an anderen spezielleren Themen.
English translation: In short, since Pierson the younger generation in Holland no longer works at the theory of value, but works by means of the theory of value upon other, more specialized subjects.
Pierson’s influence makes Dutch scholarship an example of consolidation through application. Cohen Stuart and Mees employ diminishing marginal utility to examine progressive income taxation, but their common foundation does not yield a unique fiscal rule. Cohen Stuart investigates equal sacrifice; Mees favours exempting subsistence income and taxing the remainder proportionally. Böhm-Bawerk distinguishes their analytical foundations:
Zu etwas abweichenden Ergebnissen leitet die gleichfalls scharfsinnige, jedoch auf weniger breiter wissenschaftlicher Basis durchgeführte Untersuchung von Mees.
English translation: To somewhat divergent results leads the investigation of Mees, likewise acute, but carried out upon a less broad scientific basis.
Pierson’s doubts about measuring declining marginal utility qualify the practical conclusions: the theory sharpens the taxation problem without supplying an empirically secure numerical scale. Falkenburg’s discussion of wages similarly connects theory with institutions. Wages are prices bounded by workers’ maintenance requirements and employers’ valuation of the last worker’s contribution; bargaining and collective organization help determine their position within those limits.
Verrijn Stuart’s Ricardo und Marx turns from application to classical economics. His reconstruction presents Smith and Ricardo as cost theorists rather than straightforward predecessors of Marx. Reporting this interpretation of Smith, Böhm-Bawerk writes:
Die Arbeitstheorie habe er nur für jenen primitiven Urzustand vorgetragen, in welchem Kapital und Bodeneigentum noch gar nicht in Frage kommen, und wo daher die „sämtlichen Kosten“ identisch mit der „Arbeit allein“ sind.
English translation: He had put forward the labour theory only for that primitive original state in which capital and landed property do not yet come into question at all, and where therefore the "total costs" are identical with "labour alone".
Böhm-Bawerk broadly accepts the reconstruction but questions the consistency it attributes to the classical authors. Smith leaves competing explanations unresolved, while Ricardo’s emphasis on labour can obscure the wider role of costs. Marx could therefore regard himself as Ricardo’s continuator while departing from his doctrine. Historical influence and logical agreement must be distinguished; selective passages cannot establish an entirely coherent theoretical ancestry.
The Italian discussion tests competing explanations. Böhm-Bawerk charges Loria with circularity for combining the derivation of productive goods’ value from their products with the opposing derivation of products’ value from costs. Alessio’s appeal to social valuation likewise fails, in his view, to resolve the conflict between utility and costs as ultimate explanatory principles. Collective judgment cannot simply supply the missing foundation.
Böhm-Bawerk treats Graziani and Montanari’s historical studies and Pantaleoni’s systematic exposition more favourably. His praise of Pantaleoni nevertheless accompanies a defence of Menger against allegations of plagiarism. Publication chronology, access to earlier writings, and the structure of Menger’s reasoning support the case for independent discovery. Applications by Emilio Cossa, Graziani, and especially Conigliani show the constructive potential of deriving particular effects, including tax incidence, from general value and price theory.
The German section sharpens the distinction between classification and explanation. Against Gerlach’s separation of consumption goods valued through feeling from productive goods apprehended through intellect, Böhm-Bawerk argues that both valuations involve knowledge of causal possibilities and their significance for welfare. Productive goods extend the causal chain rather than introduce a fundamentally different act of valuation.
Neumann’s movement toward defining value as the concrete significance of control over a good receives qualified approval. Yet a definition does not explain value’s origin or magnitude. Supply and demand cannot explain prices through quantities alone: the intensity of buyers’ and sellers’ valuations must enter the analysis. Neumann’s reluctance to develop subjective value theory consequently weakens his account of price formation.
The survey presents value theory as a foundation for connecting individual assessments with prices, wages, and taxation. Its international development reveals productive applications alongside unresolved disputes. For Böhm-Bawerk, these disputes call for deeper causal explanation, not the abandonment of subjective valuation.
This work was divided into 3 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 3 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian