Siegmund Feilbogen on Pierson’s Leerboek der Staathuishoudkunde (1891)

Siegmund Feilbogen’s 1891 review examines the first half of the second volume of N. G. Pierson’s economics textbook, published in Haarlem in 1889. He presents Pierson as a learned and impartial mediator among national traditions of economic thought:

Auch in der Wissenschaft scheinen die Holländer zu ehrlichen Maklern zwischen den Deutschen, Franzosen und Engländern berufen zu sein.

English translation: In science too the Dutch seem to be called upon to act as honest brokers between the Germans, the French, and the English.

This opening frames Pierson’s achievement as critical selection rather than simple eclecticism. Recalling the first volume’s explanation of income through the laws of exchange value, Feilbogen emphasizes Pierson’s debt to Carl Menger without reducing his position to allegiance to the Austrian school. His practical authority as director of the Netherlands Bank complements this portrait of independent theoretical judgment.

The review’s organizing theme is Pierson’s priority of production over distribution. Although improvements in distribution remain desirable, a substantial increase in the productivity of national labour is presented as indispensable to lasting improvement in the condition of poorer classes. Feilbogen follows this distinction between beneficial reforms and sufficient remedies through the half-volume’s five principal sections.

The first section contests fears that greater productivity must produce general overproduction. The second tests how far unrestricted self-interest can serve economic purposes and identifies needs that a wholly free, egoistic society would leave unsatisfied. Feilbogen’s praise for this analysis therefore does not imply an unqualified endorsement of laissez-faire. Yet Pierson also denies that changing ownership alone would permanently resolve social distress:

Seiner Grundtendenz entsprechend, zeigt der Verfasser dann, dass die Beseitigung des Privateigenthums am Capital ebenfalls für die Dauer nicht genügen würde, um die Ungleichheit und das Elend zu beseitigen.

English translation: In accordance with his fundamental tendency, the author then shows that the abolition of private property in capital would likewise not suffice in the long run to do away with inequality and misery.

The third section reconstructs Malthusian population theory sympathetically while rejecting moral restraint as an adequate remedy. Together, these discussions establish productivity as the test against which alternative explanations and programmes of social improvement are measured.

The fourth section considers protectionism’s appeal before weighing its consequences. Feilbogen praises Pierson’s objectivity and practical sobriety: protection’s disadvantages appear clearer than its prospective benefits, making restraint preferable for the Netherlands. The fifth section addresses the origins and reform of landed property, drawing attention to the historical and agrarian research of Inama-Sternegg and Minskowski. Respect for ambitious reform proposals nevertheless coexists with reluctance to recommend radical changes. Pierson’s support for adopting English tenant-protection measures follows the same governing criterion: their capacity to improve agricultural productivity.

Feilbogen concludes by recommending the volume to readers of Dutch interested in social questions and anticipating its continuation on public finance. His approving assessment makes Pierson’s significance lie in the disciplined scrutiny of competing remedies, combining theoretical breadth with caution about reforms whose lasting economic benefits remain uncertain.