[Rezension zu] Rüdiger von der Goltz: Die Theorie der Wechselkurse in Deutschland während der Jahre 1914 bis 1922 verglichen mit Goschens Theorie von 1854

Friedrich August von Hayek: Review of Rüdiger von der Goltz (1927)

Hayek’s short review assesses Goltz’s comparison of German exchange-rate theories of 1914–1922 with Goschen’s theory of 1854. Its central claim is that German economists’ theoretical failures had damaging consequences for currency policy. The comparison establishes an unfavorable contrast:

Ein Vergleich der in Deutschland während und nach dem Kriege vertretenen Anschauungen über die Bestimmungsgründe der Wechselkurse mit G. J. Goschens berühmter Theorie konnte nicht zum Vorteil ersterer ausschlagen.

English translation: A comparison of the views on the determinants of exchange rates put forward in Germany during and after the war with G. J. Goschen's famous theory could not turn out to the advantage of the former.

Hayek attributes these failures both to economists’ unfamiliarity with currency questions and to their broader, inadequately theoretical understanding of money. His target is the balance-of-payments theory of exchange rates. He praises the few economists who fought it, while stressing their lack of success. Goltz’s account traces that theory’s gradual displacement, although Hayek faults him for overlooking important contributions. The review thus distinguishes progress in theoretical debate from effective influence on policy.

The closing assessment grants the book adequate care but little intellectual independence or stylistic distinction. Its lasting value lies in the warning its subject offers:

Sein Gegenstand wäre wohl geeignet, spätere Generationen deutscher Nationalökonomen von neuerlicher Emanzipation von ernster wirtschaftstheoretischer Arbeit zu warnen.

English translation: Its subject would indeed be well suited to warn later generations of German economists against a renewed emancipation from serious work in economic theory.

Moving from historical comparison through criticism of monetary doctrine to qualified appraisal, Hayek makes the review a defense of rigorous economic theory. The wartime explanations of the mark’s depreciation serve as evidence of what happens when authoritative judgments cease to rest on serious theoretical work; he does not develop an alternative exchange-rate model here.