2,793 works, 150 years of economic thought. Each one summarized and searchable, with cited passages inside.
Credit substitutes can reduce the frequency of monetary fluctuations while making them more severe: this is one of the claims Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen singles out in his 1911 review of Camillo Supino’s study of the international money market. His brief, appreciative notice foregrounds a concrete analytical tension—how an account of money’s value grounded in precious-metal costs accommodates credit, circulation, and changing demand. Schullern reports Supino’s positions rather than developing an alternative theory, and his allowance for disagreement comes without a specific objection. The review offers a compact view of what he finds worth attending to in Supino: credit’s influence on monetary needs and the relationship between money’s normal and current exchange value.
A textbook’s usefulness changes when it crosses a national border. In this brief 1911 review of the revised second edition of Giorgio Loris’s Elementi di legislazione rurale, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen distinguishes its role in Italian technical education from its value abroad as a reference on Italian agrarian law. He praises its clarity and coverage of essentials, but closes with surprise that Italy’s technical institutes should require such detailed legal instruction. The notice offers a compact example of how a reviewer could judge a legal manual both as a practical reference and as an indication of the demands placed on students.
What distinguishes workers’ resistance to employers from their organization of cooperative economic activity? In this brief 1911 review of Giuseppe Goria’s study of Italian workers’ cooperation, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen highlights that distinction through examples such as cooperative tenancies and producer, consumer, and credit cooperatives. He singles out Luigi Luzzatti’s preface, with its attack on both revolutionary and conservative hypocrisy, but grounds his own praise in Goria’s factual material and careful institutional history. The review offers a compact glimpse of Schullern’s evaluative priorities: political candour matters, while documentary substance and attention to the development of particular cooperative forms establish the book’s value.
Increasing specialization makes cooperation between economics and sociology more necessary—but does recognizing that need actually produce an economic sociology? In this brief 1911 review of René Maunier’s L’Économie politique et la Sociologie, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen highlights that gap between aspiration and achievement. He commends Maunier’s careful classification of economic facts and historical learning, while reporting the author’s view that disciplinary boundaries divide an intrinsically unified social reality for convenience alone. Schullern’s particular praise for the treatment of law and morality gives his favorable assessment a concrete focus: the review shows which conceptual links he found useful in an attempt to bring specialized inquiries into closer relation.
A national economy, on this account, is no mere sum of households but an organism of interdependent economic units bound by territory, law, and language. Conceived as a study aid for German-speaking universities, this compendium moves from the anatomy of needs and goods through a long historical survey, Greek and Roman antiquity, mercantilism, physiocracy, Adam Smith and the classical school, socialism from Owen to Marx, and the cooperative movement, before building its theoretical core on subjective value and marginal utility (Grenznutzen). Schullern-Schrattenhofen follows Menger in deriving money from the needs of exchange rather than from legislation, defends metallic currency against token theories, treats price as the meeting of subjective valuations, and closes on credit. Objective in method, yet frank about its own commitments.
Aus dem Gesagten dürfte sich wohl ergeben haben, daß jede von den aufgezählten Besitzkategorien ihre bestimmte Aufgabe zu erfüllen, daß aber die wichtigsten die den mittleren Gruppen angehörenden sind.
English translation: “From what has been said, it should be evident that each of the enumerated categories of property has its particular task to fulfill, but that the most important are those belonging to the middle groups.”
Can workers’ material conditions improve under capitalism without making further reform any less necessary? In this 1912 review of Berthold Missiaen’s L’appauvrissement des masses, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen approvingly presents just such a position. He highlights Missiaen’s German evidence—wages measured against food prices, widening consumption, savings and insurance—as grounds for rejecting inevitable impoverishment, not for absolving capitalism of its harms. Schullern’s distinctive emphasis falls on the Christian conception of welfare that gives these findings their purpose: wealth should reach broader circles without sacrificing moral and spiritual life. This brief review shows how he joins confidence in measurable economic improvement to an insistence that prosperity alone neither defines human well-being nor completes the task of social reform.
What makes spirits a suitable object of indirect taxation? In this brief 1912 notice, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen identifies that question as the theoretical endpoint of F. G. Tenerelli’s study of Italian and foreign tax legislation. His appraisal highlights not only comparative law but also Tenerelli’s detailed criticism of Italian tax provisions and assessment procedures. Schullern endorses the book’s value for specialists without testing its fiscal argument himself. The notice offers a compact record of what this reviewer found useful: the connection between a tax’s theoretical justification and the practical machinery of its assessment.
Writing as a fellow textbook author, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen finds in Bertrand Nogaro’s Éléments d’Économie politique a teaching aim he shares: clear, concise economics grounded in practical questions of money, banking, stock exchanges, and international trade. His brief 1914 review moves from this pedagogical approval to a more specific conceptual interest: how Nogaro connects individual economic activities with organized social life while setting aside the question of governmental intervention. Schullern offers no extended critique; instead, his selection of characteristic formulations lets readers see what he values in an introductory economics text, and how practical instruction can coexist with an explicit account of the discipline’s scope.
Can a shipowner’s pursuit of profit ever conflict with public welfare? In this brief 1914 review of the substantially expanded third edition of Camillo Supino’s La Navigazione dal punto di vista economico, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen reports Supino’s categorical answer: private advantage and social welfare coincide. The rationale joins commercial growth to national wealth, military strength, and international standing. Schullern presents this alignment without objection, moving from the captain’s duty of self-sacrifice to the economic interests of shipowners. His appreciative assessment singles out factual and statistical evidence and current coverage of state subsidies. The review offers a compact encounter with an economic account of shipping in which enterprise, professional duty, and state power appear mutually reinforcing rather than competing.
Can technical progress postpone diminishing returns without abolishing them? This is the most pointed issue Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen selects in his brief, favorable review of Carlo di Nola’s agrarian economics. Schullern foregrounds di Nola’s account of production as an interaction among factors, rather than a question of land alone: changing their combinations can open new possibilities even as the usefulness of an individual factor declines. His selection also draws attention to a concrete distinction easily obscured in debates about land distribution—the difference between the size of a property holding and that of a working farm. The review offers an appreciative contemporary appraisal of these propositions, not an extended test of their validity.
How can agricultural protection secure food supplies without making essential nourishment unaffordable? In this 1916 review of Siegfried Strakosch’s study of Austrian agriculture, Hermann von Schullern zu Schrattenhofen makes that tension a test of economic policy. He welcomes Strakosch’s challenge to economic liberalism, but insists that tariffs must serve consumption rather than producers’ profits alone. His political commitment does not erase his empirical caution: protection’s effects are difficult to isolate, and grain prices are not bread prices. Tyrol’s special grain surcharge suggests a concrete opportunity for investigation, while farm accounts could establish the costs that policy must address. The review offers a pointed encounter between wartime demands for secure domestic provisioning and the difficulty of measuring whether protection actually advances public welfare.
Food can always be imported, the doctrine that would subordinate agriculture to industry and trade, had, Schullern-Schrattenhofen argues, been refuted by the World War. Written for Diehl and Mombert's Grundrisse series, this treatment of agrarian policy rather than agrarian law surveys the Agrarverfassung: land distribution, tenancy and Erbpacht, mortgage credit and Rodbertus's rent principle, inheritance and Anerbenrecht, internal colonization, and the postwar expropriation laws from the Reichssiedlungsgesetz to the abolition of the Fideikommisse. Against socialist Bodenreform and the Roman-law conception of absolute ownership, he presses a Germanic idea of property as duty, holding the self-cultivating owner to be the ideal citizen. His standpoint is anti-materialist, moderately agrarian, and insistent that agrarian questions admit only relative, situation-bound solutions.
Die Volkswirtschaft ist demnach nicht Selbstzweck, sie ist vielmehr in erster Reihe ein Hilfsmittel des kulturellen Fortschrittes und hat von diesem Standpunkte aus behandelt und geleitet zu werden.
English translation: “The national economy is accordingly not an end in itself; rather, it is in the first place an instrument of cultural progress, and must be treated and directed from this standpoint.”