Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen: Review of J. H. Curran on Francis A. Walker (1901)

Schullern’s brief scholarly review assesses Curran’s critical exposition of Walker’s economic theories. It begins by distinguishing Walker’s European reputation as a statistician, especially through the ninth and tenth censuses, from the recognition accorded to his economics. Walker remains insufficiently appreciated, Schullern suggests, although informed theorists already know his ideas, particularly on income distribution.

Nichtsdestoweniger ist es sehr dankenswert, daß Curran sich der Aufgabe unterzogen hat, in gedrängter, kritischer Darstellung Walker's theoretische Lehren zusammenzufassen.

English translation: Nonetheless it is very much to be appreciated that Curran has undertaken the task of summarizing Walker's theoretical doctrines in a compressed, critical presentation.

The review’s central judgment concerns the value of this compact synthesis, not the validity of Walker’s doctrines themselves. Curran organizes his account into three chapters on general wage theory, income distribution, and money. Schullern praises its factual presentation and objective assessment: Curran neither glorifies Walker nor merely reproduces his claims, but offers a considered judgment and a clear, substantially comprehensive account of his reasoning.

Two details locate the book within contemporary theoretical discussion. Walker’s relation to Böhm-Bawerk is timely because of the second edition of the latter’s major work. Curran’s recognition of Mangoldt’s contribution to the study of entrepreneurial profit also earns explicit approval:

Daß der Verfasser Mangoldt's Verdienste (S. 65 ff.) in Betreff der Durchforschung des Unternehmergewinnes besonders hervorhebt, scheint mir um so erfreulicher, als dieser hervorragende Gelehrte jetzt schon ernstlich der Gefahr des — unverdienten — Vergessenwerdens ausgesetzt ist.

English translation: That the author particularly emphasizes Mangoldt's merits (pp. 65 ff.) with respect to the investigation of entrepreneurial profit seems to me all the more gratifying, since this eminent scholar is even now seriously exposed to the danger of being - undeservedly - forgotten.

Here exposition becomes an intervention against undeserved scholarly neglect. The review closes by reproducing Curran’s verdict that none of Walker’s theories proves sufficient, yet their formulation deserves gratitude even for provoking refutation. This conclusion sharpens the review’s governing distinction: a theorist’s intellectual usefulness need not depend on the lasting validity of his theories. Schullern values Curran’s book for making that usefulness accessible through criticism rather than admiration alone.