Robert Meyer · 1887
Robert Meyer’s review assesses Mischler’s statistical and institutional analysis of public finance in Bohemia. Its central concern is the relationship between the state and self-governing bodies. Meyer welcomes their integrated fiscal treatment while questioning how Mischler identifies independent public households and divides the history of administrative autonomy.
Wie bereits angedeutet, behandelt nämlich Mischler das statistische Material keineswegs als Selbstzweck, sondern hauptsächlich als Grundlage zur Gewinnung allgemeinerer Gesichtspunkte, von denen ihm manche Anlass zu sehr beachtenswerthen Ausführungen geben.
English translation: As already indicated, Mischler treats the statistical material by no means as an end in itself, but chiefly as a basis for arriving at more general points of view, many of which give him occasion for very noteworthy expositions.
The movement from figures to institutional interpretation governs Meyer’s assessment. Mischler examines provincial finance, associated funds and foundations, districts, schools, and municipalities. The investigation’s breadth, however, exceeds the consistency of its evidence.
Das statistische Material, welches in 27 Tabellen geordnet vorliegt, ist begreiflicherweise von sehr verschiedener Vollständigkeit und verschiedenem Wert.
English translation: The statistical material, which is presented arranged in 27 tables, is understandably of very varying completeness and of varying value.
Municipalities and foundations present especially serious gaps. Meyer also notes Mischler’s reliance on the provincial committee’s statements rather than other available materials. Such limitations qualify the results without cancelling their importance.
Ungeachtet dieser nur relativen Genauigkeit gehören die Tabellen über den Gemeindehaushalt, einschliesslich jener über den Schulhaushalt, zu den wichtigsten des Werkes.
English translation: Notwithstanding this merely relative accuracy, the tables on the municipal budget, including those on the school budget, are among the most important of the work.
Municipal and school accounts suggest a comparatively reassuring financial position, supported by property ownership and the passing of the heaviest school-building expenditure. Aggregate comparisons distinguish fiscal scale from administrative responsibility: state expenditure predominates overall, but self-governing bodies bear the largest share of internal administration. Their importance consequently cannot be measured by total spending alone.
Meyer endorses Mischler’s criticism of fragmented fund administration and his demand for provincial budgetary unity. He also supports applying the distinction between a body’s own functions and delegated functions beyond municipalities. This distinction must remain separate from that between compulsory and optional duties: an obligation’s binding character does not establish its institutional origin.
Meyer is more critical of the category of temporary public households, introduced in connection with land-redemption finance. Where joint financial administration adequately explains an arrangement, he sees no need to posit an independent household. Neither a representative commission nor a fund’s civil-law personality necessarily establishes such independence. His caution extends to school funds, teachers’ pension funds, and foundations. He also faults Mischler for overlooking relevant Administrative Court decisions concerning differentiated school surcharges and municipal responsibility for collecting and remitting state taxes.
District reform receives qualified support. Despite existing districts’ shortcomings, Meyer agrees that Bohemia needs an intermediate level between municipality and province. Mischler proposes expanding district responsibilities beyond roads to schools, poor relief, assistance funds, and agricultural affairs, accompanied by boundary adjustments and respect for nationally differentiated school districts. Institutional weakness thus warrants reconstruction rather than abolition.
Revenue reform supplies the fiscal counterpart. Mischler criticizes dependence on surcharges to state taxes and advocates legally designated revenue categories from which autonomous bodies could choose. Meyer adds the unsuccessful history of reserving luxury taxation for self-government. The issue is how independent responsibilities can obtain corresponding sources of income.
The principal historical disagreement concerns Mischler’s three epochs of autonomy: subordination to state functions before 1849, a transitional predominance of broadly assigned public duties, and an emerging stage of specifically autonomous affairs. Meyer instead stresses continuity through successive developmental stages. Long-established bodies, overshadowed by absolutism, gradually secure recognition for responsibilities grounded in their distinctive character. Clearer delegated functions and autonomous revenues develop this principle rather than inaugurate an entirely new one.
Meyer’s conclusion is appreciative but guarded. Mischler’s sympathy for autonomous institutions sometimes diminishes his critical distance, while Bohemian conditions are too readily generalized. Nevertheless, the study offers a valuable model for investigations of other Austrian lands. Meyer’s review combines support for integrated fiscal analysis with insistence that budgetary arrangements, legal personality, and historical periodization require scrutiny before they can establish institutional autonomy.
This work was divided into 1 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 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian