[Rezension zu] Max Schmidt: Grundriß der ethnologischen Volkswirtschaftslehre, Bände I–II

Eugen Peter Schwiedland’s 1921 review of Max Schmidt’s Grundriß der ethnologischen Volkswirtschaftslehre, volumes I–II, questions whether Schmidt establishes a distinct discipline. It first reconstructs his distinction between material economic inquiry, concerned with dependence on the environment, and social economic inquiry, concerned with human relations:

Nun ist aber der einzelne nicht allein von der umgebenden Natur, sondern zugleich auch von der ihn umgebenden Menschheit abhängig, die ihm hilfreich oder störend entgegentritt.

English translation: Now the individual is dependent not only on the surrounding nature, but at the same time also on the humanity surrounding him, which confronts him either helpfully or disturbingly.

Human interdependence thus supplies the basis for what Schmidt calls ethnological economics. Schwiedland then maps the books’ organization: the first volume treats acts and means of intercourse; the second, the production, movement, and distribution of goods. His decisive move is to separate this systematic coverage from its contribution to economic theory:

Die Ausbeute für den Wirtschaftstheoretiker ist dabei nicht so reich, wie mancher gehofft haben mag; man tut dem Buche sogar nicht unrecht, wenn man sie als erstaunlich gering bezeichnet.

English translation: The yield for the economic theorist is thereby not so rich as many may have hoped; one does the book no injustice even in describing it as astonishingly meagre.

The review concludes that Schmidt’s work does not compel recognition of an independent discipline. Its significance lies in this terse disciplinary judgment: identifying the social conditions of economic life is not, for Schwiedland, sufficient to demonstrate the theoretical value of a new field.