[Rezension zu] Ernst Wilmersdoerffer: Notenbanken und Papiergeld im Königreiche Italien seit 1861

Ludwig von Mises: Review of Ernst Wilmersdoerffer (1913)

Mises’s brief review of Notenbanken und Papiergeld im Königreiche Italien seit 1861 credits Wilmersdoerffer with filling a gap in German descriptive economics. Its argument moves from recognition of the book’s historical coverage to a substantive reservation, then closes with qualified praise.

The book’s achievement is an orderly account of institutional change following Italian unification:

Die vielfachen Wandlungen, welche das Notenbankwesen Italiens in dem halben Jahrhundert, das seit der Verwirklichung des nationalen Einheitsgedankens verstrichen ist, durchgemacht hat, werden in übersichtlicher Weise dargestellt.

English translation: The manifold transformations which the system of banks of issue in Italy has undergone in the half-century that has elapsed since the realisation of the idea of national unity are presented in a clearly arranged manner.

Mises distinguishes this descriptive accomplishment from a fuller economic history. His central criticism concerns the missing connection between monetary fluctuations and their wider consequences:

Leider vermißt man in dem Buche ein Eingehen auf die allgemeinen wirtschaftlichen Folgen der Valutaschwankungen; das Bild, das uns der Verfasser von der Geschichte des italienischen Geld- und Bankwesens entwirft, bleibt auf diese Weise unvollständig.

English translation: Unfortunately one misses in the book any entry into the general economic consequences of the currency fluctuations; the picture which the author sketches for us of the history of Italian money and banking thus remains incomplete.

The review thus makes explanatory scope the criterion of completeness: tracing changes in note-issuing banks does not exhaust the history of money and banking. Mises does not develop an alternative explanation here. He nevertheless concludes that the book’s informative material and diligent scholarship deserve gratitude. The review’s significance lies in this measured distinction between useful institutional description and analysis of monetary change’s economic effects.