Emil Lederer · 1927
Emil Lederer’s review, published in Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik 58, issue 3, evaluates Barone’s theoretical economics as a training in rigorous reasoning whose explanatory scope remains limited. Discussing the German edition translated and supplemented by Hermann Staehle, with an introduction by Joseph Schumpeter, Lederer distinguishes the formal representation of market interdependence from an understanding of economic activity as meaningful social action.
Schumpeter erblickt mit Recht das Hauptverdienst dieses Buches von Barone, dessen dankenswerte Herausgabe in deutscher Sprache er angeregt hat, darin, daß es eine Denktechnik zu lehren imstande sei.
English translation: Schumpeter rightly sees the chief merit of this book by Barone, whose welcome publication in the German language he prompted, in the fact that it is able to teach a technique of thinking.
This endorsement establishes the review’s governing balance: Lederer values the discipline of Barone’s method without treating its deductions as a sufficient explanation of economic life. The book’s central achievement lies in its analysis of equilibrium and production.
Am wichtigsten sind demgemäß der erste und zweite Teil, welche das wirtschaftliche Gleichgewicht und die Produktionsfaktoren zum Gegenstand haben.
English translation: Accordingly the most important are the first and second parts, which have as their subject economic equilibrium and the factors of production.
Barone approaches economic relations from outside, identifying positions whose quantities and prices are mutually dependent. Workers, capital owners, and landowners supply services, while entrepreneurs appear principally as buyers; each group also occupies the opposite position. Individual wants and supply schedules enter as given data.
Der Markt selbst stellt sich danach als ein System von Angebots- und Nachfragepositionen dar.
English translation: The market itself accordingly presents itself as a system of supply and demand positions.
Lederer connects this construction to Schumpeter’s Wesen und Hauptinhalt: analysis establishes how changes in one quantity entail changes elsewhere. Graphical exposition makes these relations clear, but readers must reconstruct the economic circumstances represented by the diagrams. Otherwise, geometrical deduction can substitute for economic understanding. This requirement both explains the method’s educational value and exposes its limits.
Equilibrium and maximum theorems may represent market facts adequately without revealing their social meaning or developmental tendencies. Because wants enter as quantitative givens, the construction requires neither an explicit homo oeconomicus nor a theory of value organizing economic action. Value becomes exchange ratio or price, determined through equilibrium conditions like the solution to an equation. For Lederer, such determination does not exhaust explanation.
Interest provides a decisive example. Lederer accepts that saving need not depend on a positive interest rate: people would still provide for future needs without interest. Yet capital’s technical capacity to produce a surplus beyond amortization and insurance is only a condition of interest, not a sufficient explanation. The analysis must also consider agents’ preferences between a larger future product and a smaller present one. Even that supplement does not resolve Böhm-Bawerk’s problem or disclose the social conditions embedded in the economic picture. Lederer’s objection concerns explanatory sufficiency, not the correctness of Barone’s deductions.
The subsequent discussion tests this distinction through particular applications. Barone’s Ricardian treatment of ground rent leaves unclear whether rent is exclusively differential; without a substantive theory of value, absolute rent disappears as a problem. International trade and monopoly prices, by contrast, demonstrate the graphical method’s fertility. Even there, especially in the discussion of monopoly taxation, the reader must recover the economic circumstances behind the figures.
Lederer also questions abstraction from obstacles to equilibrium that may be economic forces rather than mere inertia. Barone’s account of the allocation of precious metals between industrial use and monetary circulation neglects money’s nominal character, whose effects can exceed minor friction. Although Barone repeatedly acknowledges abstraction and allows disturbances to generate new equilibria, Lederer urges readers to keep these qualifications operative.
The conclusion renews the positive pedagogical judgment. Barone’s rigor, transparent construction, and lucid graphics can strengthen theoretical work in German universities. Beginners nevertheless require guidance, historical introductions to economic life, and a broader framework that keeps disciplinary controversies visible. The review thus advocates formal analysis as an essential intellectual training while insisting that an understanding of economic life also requires interpretation of its social conditions, purposes, and historical movement.
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