Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk’s Review of H. Eisenhart’s Geschichte der Nationalökonomik (1882)

Böhm-Bawerk’s review assesses Eisenhart’s history of economic thought as an interpretive achievement whose coherence also exposes it to partisan distortion. Eisenhart does not seek new historical evidence: he reorganizes familiar material around an “immanente Vernunftentwicklung,” emphasizing theories’ effects on social institutions and economic policy. Böhm-Bawerk credits this approach with producing a compact, accessible survey, unified in conception and animated by conviction. Yet the same interpretive emphasis threatens historical fairness, especially when Eisenhart’s preference for an “organic” conception of economic life governs his treatment of liberalism.

The review’s central distinction is between recognizing the limits of economic freedom and denying liberalism’s historical achievements. Böhm-Bawerk accepts that unrestricted freedom cannot answer every contemporary problem and that social and state institutions must restrain serious abuses of individual discretion. Nevertheless, liberal economics supplied both the theoretical foundations on which subsequent inquiry still builds and the criticism needed to dismantle entrenched legislative and administrative abuses.

Freilich ist das Niederreissen nicht genug, man muss auch wieder aufbauen. Aber mit jenem musste begonnen werden.

English translation: To be sure, tearing down is not enough; one must also build up again. But a beginning had to be made with the former.

This sequence makes historical context, rather than present allegiance, the standard of judgment. Even if contemporary economics must construct new institutions, Smith and his school fulfilled their historical task by demanding liberation from existing restraints. Eisenhart’s denunciations of Smith’s confidence in competition, fiscal restraint, and self-interest therefore mistake a historically necessary programme for an indefensible doctrine. Böhm-Bawerk draws the methodological consequence sharply:

So kann der Parteimann, aber so sollte meines Erachtens nicht der Historiker einer Wissenschaft sprechen.

English translation: Thus may the partisan speak, but thus, in my judgement, the historian of a science ought not to speak.

The review then applies the same demand for sound argument to Eisenhart’s attack on communism. Böhm-Bawerk distinguishes agreement with a conclusion from acceptance of its justification. Eisenhart opposes compulsory distribution according to individual merit partly because it would remove opportunities for voluntary, morally valuable conduct. For Böhm-Bawerk, that reasoning proves too much: voluntary action may possess greater moral worth than obedience under compulsion, but this cannot by itself invalidate legal restraints.

Natürlich sieht man sich aber in wichtigen Dingen, in denen die freie Selbstbestimmung gemeinschädlich werden könnte, oft gezwungen, dieselbe auf Kosten des Spielraumes moralischer Verdienste durch das Recht einzuschränken.

English translation: Naturally, however, in important matters in which free self-determination could become harmful to the community, one often finds oneself compelled to restrict it by law at the cost of the scope left to moral merit.

The conceptual move is to separate the moral value of free action from the justification of enforceable rights. Böhm-Bawerk remains deeply doubtful about compulsory redistribution, but rejects the suggestion that disadvantaged people could be denied a rightful claim merely to preserve the wealthy’s opportunity for generosity. His criticism concerns the adequacy of Eisenhart’s argument, not an endorsement of communism.

The closing recommendation preserves this balance. Eisenhart’s book is a valuable contribution deserving attentive reading, but its interpretive force requires a critical reader. The review’s broader relevance lies in its model of historical judgment: acknowledge a school’s limitations without erasing its achievements, and test an argument independently of sympathy with its political conclusion.