2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
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.
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.
German agricultural cooperatives offer a promising model for Italian Tyrol’s fragmented farms—but what makes a cooperative different from any other business association? In this 1902 review of Giovanni Lorenzoni’s two-volume study, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen links that practical prospect to a precise conceptual disagreement. Against Lorenzoni’s adoption of Pantaleoni’s account, he argues that members’ social position and shared purposes constitute a historically distinctive organization, not incidental variations on a common form. His approval remains discriminating: Germany’s achievements in rural credit do not establish that cooperatives can meet every agricultural credit need. The review lets readers examine how legal structure, economic purpose, and social membership shape the case for cooperative reform—and why its usefulness must be assessed rather than assumed.
What could unite France’s revolutionary socialist groups when participation in government and the admission of trade unions and workers’ cooperatives remained contentious? In this brief 1902 review of the official proceedings of the Lyon congress, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out the proposed party’s founding principles: international worker solidarity, proletarian organization, the conquest of power, and socialization of production and exchange. He acknowledges substantial disagreements without detailing them, and distinguishes these shared commitments from organizational rules shaped by French circumstances. The review offers a compact view of the programmatic basis of socialist unity—and of what Schullern chooses to leave outside that account.
Comparative economic history promises insight, but when does comparison outrun knowledge of local conditions? In this brief review of W. J. Ashley’s Surveys historic and economic, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen pairs appreciation with methodological restraint. He finds Ashley’s discussions of settlement history especially instructive, yet notes their limited engagement with current controversies and cautions against premature, detailed parallels between France, England, India, and Japan. His selective judgments distinguish material that stimulates further inquiry from conclusions readers might too readily draw. The review offers a compact example of critical reception: an economic historian welcoming international evidence while insisting on closer study of particular circumstances.
Compulsory association promises farmers a stronger public voice—but who bears its costs, and whose interests prevail? In this commentary on Austria’s 1902 law establishing agricultural occupational associations, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen supports collective organization while scrutinizing its safeguards. Smallholders must not be overwhelmed by large estates, nor compulsory members exposed to speculative losses. His distinctive expectation is that organization will both strengthen agricultural representation and moderate excessive agrarian demands by imposing practical responsibility. Credit, collective purchasing, and other services matter as foundations for this political capacity. The commentary shows how that ambition depends on unglamorous institutional choices: membership boundaries, contribution limits, trained officials, and provincial legislation that could either realize or weaken the national framework.
What happens to economics when its basic unit is neither goods nor value, but an enterprise comprising people and goods? In this short German review, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen presents Alberto Zorli’s proposed reorientation while drawing attention to its terminological difficulties: even translating azienda economica requires a choice between Unternehmung and Betrieb. Schullern’s particular interest lies in the consequences for public finance. Zorli treats the state as a collective enterprise distinguished by coercion, drawing economic principles from economics and its governing norms from public law. Rather than testing this framework at length, the review isolates the connection between Zorli’s conceptual innovation and his account of state economic activity—a compact encounter with the problem of bringing private and public economies under one vocabulary.
Argentina’s currency question mattered to European grain producers as well as to those studying the destination of European emigrants. This connection frames Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen’s brief 1903 review of the first, monetary volume of Eteocle Lorini’s study of Argentina. Schullern judges the book chiefly as a source: he praises the care and objectivity of Lorini’s government-sponsored investigation and the breadth of documentation supporting its account of monetary affairs. Rather than endorsing a currency reform, the review shows what Schullern valued in economic research—local investigation, official evidence, and the placement of monetary conditions within a wider account of production, migration, and public finance.