The archive.

Cheap food benefits consumers—but what happens to industrial employment when farming ceases to sustain rural households? In this 1900 essay, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen treats Austrian agriculture as part of an interconnected social economy, arguing that the protection of small and medium holdings serves more than farmers alone. His commitment to rural stability is tempered by persistent scrutiny of the evidence: acreage does not establish prosperity, mortgage registrations may exaggerate debt, and cash wages omit food, lodging and seasonal insecurity. Readers encounter a reform-minded yet paternalistic perspective that resists both complacency and blanket condemnation of existing institutions. The essay’s distinctive interest lies in the tension between its demand for energetic public intervention and its insistence that policy requires better knowledge of how agricultural households actually live.

Can wages come from capital without being constrained by a rigid wage fund? In this brief 1901 review of Camillo Supino’s Il capitale salari, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen identifies a dynamic alternative: the capital available for wages is itself produced by labour and changes with productivity, accumulation, and profits. The technical question leads to a sharper social tension—the worker must sell labour, while the employer need not buy it. Schullern reports Supino’s resulting condemnation of the economic system but explicitly withholds agreement, without developing his objections. His qualified appreciation makes the review useful as a compact encounter with an economic argument whose value, for its reviewer, lies in reopening questions about wage formation and unemployment rather than securing assent to its conclusions.

Criticism can do greater justice to a thinker than discipleship: this is Schullern’s striking judgement on Bernhardi’s treatment of Adam Smith in his brief 1901 review of Fritz Demuth’s monograph. Schullern welcomes Demuth’s recovery of an economist often named but seldom studied, stressing the connection between Bernhardi’s theoretical doctrines, historical understanding, and social-policy views. His interest is not merely retrospective. The significance of different sizes of landed property, he argues, has become a pressing question again, giving researchers a concrete reason to reconsider Bernhardi. The review offers a compact account of why Schullern regarded this recovery as useful to economic inquiry, rather than simply a correction to a neglected scholar’s reputation.

International trade can increase wealth without making unrestricted competition indispensable: this distinction drives Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s 1901 review of Heinrich Dietzel’s Weltwirtschaft und Volkswirtschaft. Respecting Dietzel’s intellectual force, Schullern nevertheless rejects free trade as a universally valid doctrine. His criterion is the nation’s capacity for independent economic and cultural development, not enrichment alone. Scientific and technical change, he argues, can alter what a country is fitted to produce; international price equalization can favour rich countries at poorer producers’ expense. This compact polemic makes clear why Schullern’s defence of tariff protection is not a rejection of foreign commerce: the disputed question is how much protection preserves national agency without cutting off useful exchange.

A theorist may deserve attention even when his theories fail to convince. In this brief 1901 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen praises J. H. Curran’s account of Francis A. Walker for combining clear exposition with criticism rather than homage. He declines to judge Walker’s doctrines himself, focusing instead on how well Curran makes their reasoning accessible. His particular welcome for Curran’s recognition of Mangoldt’s work on entrepreneurial profit adds a pointed concern: scholarly contributions can fall into undeserved neglect. By closing with Curran’s verdict that Walker’s theories merit gratitude even for inviting refutation, Schullern gives readers a compact case of critical reception in which intellectual usefulness and theoretical adequacy remain distinct.

Could cooperative organization keep Belgian cottage industries alive under worsening market and wage conditions? This practical concern gives Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review of the Belgian Office du travail’s second volume its particular interest. He praises the centuries of legislative history assembled in the study of Flemish wool weaving, but his sharpest judgement concerns straw plaiting: without extensive cooperative organization, especially consumer associations, he expects its disappearance. In domestic shoemaking, he sees more cautious grounds for hope in cooperatives already taking shape. The notice offers a compact glimpse of a reviewer weighing statistical and historical evidence against the possibilities of collective action, rather than treating industrial decline as inevitable.

A reliable record of labour legislation can also document how little is changing. In this brief 1901 review of the Belgian Labour Office’s yearbook for 1899, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen praises its coverage of worker protection and insurance but finds legislative development stalled in most states. His attention to the yearbook’s explanation of Germany’s revised invalidity-insurance law contrasts with his pointed complaint about Austria’s legislative sterility. The notice offers a compact encounter with Schullern’s reformist expectations: accurate documentation earns his approval, but a succession of minor regulations does not satisfy his demand for substantive change.

What does it mean to call income distribution a natural law? In this brief 1901 review of John Bates Clark’s The Distribution of Wealth, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out a crucial qualification: Clark’s law describes a static tendency, not an unconditional account of actual incomes. Schullern places Clark’s marginal-productivity theory near the Austrian school, while noting that fuller engagement with Böhm-Bawerk appears reserved for a projected work on dynamic distribution. Explicitly declining detailed criticism, he offers a compact theoretical orientation rather than a verdict. The notice lets readers see how a contemporary reviewer located Clark’s account of wages and interest within an ongoing debate over production, value, and the distinction between capital and capital goods.

How could Vienna’s relatively small grain futures market exert influence far beyond the exchange? In this 1901 article on the Austrian inquiry of 1900, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen follows published quotations into provincial transactions, where farmers under pressure to sell confront merchants armed with an authoritative price. Writing as an economist and participating expert, he argues that prevailing trading practices depress grain prices, while acknowledging the limits of statistical proof. His response is not blanket prohibition: genuine delivery and useful hedging must be distinguished from speculative wagers. The article offers a concrete encounter with the politics of market design—how grain standards, contractual enforceability and exchange governance distribute bargaining power—and with an agrarian conception of national welfare that challenges the assumption that cheaper grain necessarily benefits everyone.

Agreement about economic ills need not imply agreement about their cause. In this short review of Adolphe Landry’s study of private property, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen brings that distinction into focus through a comparison with Wilhelm Neurath: both economists identify conflicts between private profitability and social productivity, yet reach opposing conclusions about abolishing private ownership of productive goods. Schullern respects Landry’s thoroughness while questioning the move from criticism of existing arrangements to confidence in socialism. Especially telling is his attention to Landry’s own concession that socialist organization might bring disadvantages of its own. The review offers a compact examination of what an economic diagnosis establishes—and what remains unproved when it becomes a proposal for institutional replacement.

Can an account of production and consumption remain economics if it excludes human purposes? In this short German review of the first published part of Arthur H. Gibson’s Natural economy, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen acknowledges Gibson’s precision but questions what his abstractions leave to investigate. An economy governed solely by physical laws, Schullern argues, scarcely exists in human life; even as a theoretical construction, it would belong to natural science rather than economics. Gibson’s frequent comparisons with the economy of bees give the objection a concrete setting. The review draws a pointed distinction between defining an object rigorously and establishing that it belongs to economic inquiry.

Separating the entrepreneur from the capitalist changes not only the definition of profit but also the assignment of responsibility for unjust distribution. In this brief 1902 review of Eteocle Lorini’s Il profitto, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out the theoretical stakes of treating profit as specifically entrepreneurial income rather than rent. He recognizes Lorini’s independence while withholding detailed judgment on arguments that a short notice cannot adequately test. The review offers a compact encounter with a pointed claim: Lorini locates the contemporary obstacle to just distribution in the entrepreneur, not capital itself. Schullern’s measured account lets readers distinguish the interest of that conceptual shift from an endorsement of its conclusions.