2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
When does a statistical abstract suffice, and when must a researcher consult the detailed reports behind it? In this brief 1899 joint review of four British Labour Department publications, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen makes that practical distinction central. He notes the Abstract’s expanded coverage of women’s textile work and children’s employment after leaving school, but reserves a particular caution for Miss Collet’s evidence on women and girls in flax and jute centres: historical data provide starting points for inquiry that must reckon with substantial local differences. His notice offers a concise contemporary assessment of what these overlapping publications could supply—general orientation in the Abstract, evidence for closer investigation in the specialized reports.
Venetian protection promised civic renewal for Brescia; in Zanelli’s account, it instead accompanied the consolidation of noble rule. Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review draws attention to the mechanisms behind that reversal: a council closed to outsiders, an impoverished citizenry, and Venetian fiscal policy that strengthened aristocratic power. His particular interest lies in the connection between municipal finance and political exclusion. Yet his approval is qualified: he praises Zanelli’s documentary evidence and vivid narrative while questioning an excessively one-sided hostility toward the nobility. The review offers a compact assessment of how convincingly a history of lost civic rights can explain oligarchic endurance without becoming partisan indictment.
Technology may underlie every economic process without explaining it on its own. This distinction anchors Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1900 review of Alberto Franz Labriola’s inaugural lecture at Rome. Schullern welcomes Labriola’s proposal to examine how economical action depends on both technical possibilities and existing social conditions. His interest lies in the move from technology considered in isolation to the relations of production that shape its use and effects. The review offers a compact statement of that conceptual shift—and a carefully limited endorsement: Schullern judges the proposed inquiry fruitful, while leaving its demonstration to Labriola’s future research.
What belongs in an international collection of labour law? In this brief 1900 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen welcomes the Belgian Office of Labour’s second yearbook, covering 1898, but tests its coverage against a concrete Austrian omission. If legislation establishing an American Council of Industry and Agriculture merits inclusion, he argues, the corresponding Austrian statute should appear too. His notice offers a compact comparison of workplace regulation, accident liability and social insurance, while its closing reservation exposes a practical difficulty of documentary comparison: even a useful collection can apply its boundaries unevenly.
Can farmers’ access to mortgage credit be improved without restricting their freedom of initiative? In this brief review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen considers Antonio Salandra’s liberal critique of Ferraris’s proposal to channel postal savings-bank funds through compulsory district associations of farmers. He singles out Salandra’s objection that compulsory organization would impose bureaucratic constraints, then judges the objections to the credit scheme economically weighty. The review offers a compact distinction between the promise of agricultural finance and reservations about its institutional machinery, while leaving the detailed financial objections unstated.
Analytical acuity does not excuse polemical hostility in Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief review of Croce’s collected essays on Marx. Schullern presents their aim as recovering the realistic core of Marx’s thought from metaphysical embellishment and his followers’ unwarranted deductions. He nevertheless objects to Croce’s treatment of Loria, explicitly invoking a contemporary German standpoint. This qualified recommendation offers a compact instance of critical discrimination: Schullern acknowledges Croce’s sharpness and standing among Italian writers without endorsing his manner of controversy.
Preserving a family’s land and establishing a legally binding entail were not the same undertaking. In this 1900 review of Carl Prinz Radziwill’s study of Stolberg landownership, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen highlights the long gap between dynastic intention and institutional form: restrictions on sale and female inheritance could coexist with continued divisions of the estates. His interest is also methodological. Against doctrinaire agrarian prescriptions, he argues that policy requires knowledge of how particular property arrangements arose. He welcomes Radziwill’s archival evidence while explicitly noting that the historian draws no policy conclusion from it. This brief review shows how a history of aristocratic estates could inform a renewed debate over hereditary entails without settling whether they should be retained.
Italy’s accomplished fiscal scholarship, Schullern argues, had not secured a sound tax system. His brief 1900 review welcomes Filippo Caronna’s study for making municipal finances better known beyond Italy and highlights a concrete question: how should a municipality’s responsibilities and its relation to the state determine what it taxes? Appreciation of Caronna’s institutional analysis sits alongside a sharp objection to his treatment of Trient and Pergine as belonging to his own country—a claim Schullern condemns as chauvinism unsuited to scholarship. The review offers a compact encounter with a fiscal critic who values international comparison while policing the boundary between scholarly inquiry and national allegiance.
What makes an Italian study of cooperation useful to readers abroad? In this brief review of Filippo Virgilii’s book, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out its account of Italian cooperative law. He commends the broader treatment of cooperation’s forms, origins, and practical significance, but gives particular weight to the legal conditions governing cooperative societies, from their formation to liquidation and taxation. The notice offers a compact example of Schullern’s evaluative priorities: its recommendation rests on breadth, care, and the usefulness of nationally specific legal knowledge, rather than on a critical examination of Virgilii’s conclusions.
Political emancipation could leave the power of creditors intact: this tension gives Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s review of Heinrich Sieveking’s two-volume history of Genoese finance its focus. Schullern highlights how the removal of unpopular food duties, without replacement revenues, strengthened a financial elite even after hereditary rulers lost power. His discussion of the Casa di S. Giorgio follows Sieveking in treating it as an association of state creditors rather than a joint-stock company—a distinction that sharpens the conflict between creditors’ security and public needs. Praising the documentary evidence while questioning the clarity of some chronological exposition, Schullern offers a compact critical appraisal of how debt could transfer revenues, property, and governmental responsibilities into creditors’ hands.
Approval ends with a reservation in Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1900 review of J. C. Kreibig’s account of Austrian currency and coinage. Schullern praises the clarity of a history that traces monetary change from the confusion at Franz Joseph I’s accession, singling out inventories of legally circulating coins in 1848 and 1858 and statistics on subsequent minting. Yet his closing wish—that Kreibig’s optimism prove justified—stops short of endorsing its outlook. This compact notice lets readers distinguish the reviewer’s appreciation of documentary clarity from his more guarded response to a narrative of monetary progress.
Can municipal housing and public ownership of building land relieve the pressures facing the poorest city residents? In this brief 1900 review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen identifies these as Jacopo Tivaroni’s preferred remedies, while stressing their dependence on wider social and fiscal reform. Schullern’s approval rests not only on the proposals themselves but on Tivaroni’s use of statistics, candour about Italian housing conditions, and fair treatment of competing views. The review offers a compact account of why urban housing cannot, in Tivaroni’s analysis, be separated from the financial means and legislative responsibilities of public authorities.