Friedrich August von Hayek · 1944
Friedrich August von Hayek’s review evaluates two publications commemorating The Economist’s first century: a historical essay volume and a pamphlet reprinting centenary articles and luncheon speeches. Its central judgment is that the volume succeeds remarkably under wartime constraints, although destroyed archives and limited space diminish its documentary value.
The records and the library of the journal were destroyed in its 98th year as a result of enemy action, and paper shortage has further reduced the amount of information that could be supplied.
These losses establish the terms of Hayek’s assessment: the volume should be appreciated for its readable historical interpretation while its limitations as a reference work remain visible. His praise is consequently discriminating, attentive both to the information preserved and to the evidence no longer available.
The review proceeds through the volume’s contributions. Hayek commends the opening surveys by the anonymous Editor and Deputy Editor, including their defense of editorial anonymity, but questions their insistence on political continuity. Their emphasis seems to him to betray uncertainty about the very continuity they assert. Sir John Clapham’s account of the journal as a historical source receives especially strong praise for its compressed informational richness; E. L. Woodward’s broader political retrospect, by contrast, lets the journal recede from view.
Hayek’s most pointed criticism concerns the balance between Walter Bagehot and the journal’s founder, James Wilson. He welcomes F. W. Hirst’s sympathetic portrait of Bagehot but regrets the absence of an equivalent treatment of Wilson.
Even as an economic theorist Wilson is by no means negligible, and while there is a separate chapter by W. W. Rostow on "Bagehot and the Trade Cycle", there is hardly a reference to Wilson's interesting views on the same subject.
This objection makes the review relevant to the history of economic thought as well as journalism: Hayek asks whether inherited reputations have distorted the allocation of historical attention. Wilson’s theoretical work warrants recovery alongside Bagehot’s more familiar achievements.
The remaining assessments distinguish evidential strength, professional interest, and practical usefulness. Graham Hutton’s foreign-affairs essay brings out N. W. Senior’s sound judgment, though quotation restrictions weaken its demonstration. W. T. C. King’s money-market chapter ranks especially highly for economists, while H. Parkinson’s stock-exchange chapter and the Industry and Trade Editor’s treatment of records and statistics offer useful reference material.
Hayek closes with a bibliographic clarification rather than a second extended appraisal: the identically titled pamphlet contains separate centenary material, and librarians should distinguish it from the essay volume. Throughout, his concern is how an institution’s history can remain readable without sacrificing documentation, critical distance, or attention to neglected contributors.
This work was divided into 2 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 2 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian